Peabody Trust (202318478)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202318478
Peabody Trust
28 November 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 the resident’s reports of repairs.
- Response to the resident’s concerns about her contact details and her access to her tenancy account online.
- This investigation also considers the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has lived in the property, a 2-bed house, since October 1999.
- The landlord of the property has changed twice during the resident’s tenancy. In 2002 her landlord merged with others to form Catalyst. Then, in April 2022 Catalyst became a subsidiary of Peabody Trust. The two became fully integrated in April 2023 and Peabody Trust became the landlord.
- On 14 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and asked it to raise a stage 1 complaint. She said:
- She had previously emailed the complaints team on 5 March 2023 about her repair issues.
- Her wooden window frames were mouldy and the double-glazed pane had “blown”. The external doors had “warped” and were causing draughts. These issues were causing her to incur additional costs to keep the house warm.
- The attic was not adequately insulated. The loft hatch was also warped and was letting draughts into the home. She also queried whether the walls were properly insulated.
- She had not been notified of appointments by the landlord prior to the previous 3 repair visits.
- On 26 April 2023 a contractor attended her property without prior arrangement. The contractor said that an appointment had been made. The contractor said the appointment was about her windows, doors and insulation. However he only looked at 2 windows and 2 doors before leaving.
- The boiler was faulty and turned itself on when switched off by the controls.
- She had asked several times that it change her contact details on its system as her home phone was not in use. She asked it to remove her home phone number from the system and add her mobile phone number and email instead.
- She had reported 4 or 5 times in the past 5 months that the downstairs toilet was broken.
- She also asked when Catalyst customers would be able to access their accounts online.
- The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 16 May 2023. It provided its stage 1 response on 27 June 2023. It said:
- It would seek advice on changing her contact details and update her.
- The boiler had been repaired on 23 June 2023.
- It had booked an appointment to repair the toilet on 13 July 2023.
- An appointment had been booked for the loft hatch, front and back doors, and windows for 14 July 2023.
- It would continue to monitor the repairs and would review the case again once they had been completed. At that time it would consider whether compensation was applicable.
- On 28 July 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process. She confirmed her boiler had been repaired. However, she said:
- The toilet flush mechanism was replaced but it still had a slow leak. She had advised when she reported the repair that the seals needed changing but this was not done.
- The contractor had advised that the landlord had not authorised the repairs it had raised to her bedroom window, the back door, and the loft hatch.
- She had asked it to carry out a full survey of the property but this had not been done.
- She now had limited access to her online account and had changed her own contact details.
- Following contact from the resident, we wrote to the landlord on 8 December 2023 and told it to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 11 December 2023. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 27 December 2023. It said:
- Its stage 1 response had been “somewhat outside” the 10 working day timescale in its policy.
- She had asked it to escalate her complaint on 28 July 2023 but it had not responded until contacted by this Service on 8 December 2023. This was a failure in complaint handling. It had undergone structural changes and had increased staffing in the complaints team. It therefore felt it was “unlikely” that the complaint handling issues would reoccur.
- It had arranged repairs to the toilet, front door and windows on 3 January 2024. After these repairs had been completed it would arrange a survey of the property.
- Former Catalyst residents still did not have full functionality on the online account. It would update her when this was available.
- Its “lack of communication and delay with booking…the repairs required [had] exasperated the issues”.
- It offered her compensation of £600 comprising:
- £300 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
- £300 for “extensive” failures in complaint handling.
- The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to this Service accordingly.
Legal and policy framework
- The landlord is obliged under the terms of the tenancy agreement to keep the structure and exterior of the property (including the roof, walls, windows, and external doors) in good repair. It is also responsible for the repair of installations for heating and sanitation including the boiler and toilet.
- The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete routine repairs within “an average of” 10 working days.
- The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 days of receipt. It states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
Assessment and findings
Record keeping
- It is an obligation of membership of the Scheme for landlords to provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint. In this case we asked the landlord to provide all information relating to the resident’s repair reports from 2022 onwards.
- The landlord has provided us with what it states are all of its repair records for the property. This contains 5 repair logs most of which refer to a repair not subject to this investigation.
- When asked by this Service why it does not have any other repair records the landlord has said it believes this is a result of the merger. It has also stated that the errors in this case were “due to the resident being an ex Catalyst resident”.
- The records provided by the landlord do no show when the resident first reported the repairs referred to in her complaint. Nor is it clear what action the landlord took in response to the reports and when. The landlord has provided internal communication in the form of emails which refer to works being raised and completed. In the absence of corroborating evidence we have based our investigation and assessment on this information, and the resident’s account of what transpired.
- The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) was published in May 2023. This identified that landlords were losing data when they merged to form new landlords. The report recommended that prior to a merger landlords identify whether they can ‘talk’ to each other; data can be securely transferred, and staff can access the data they need. We acknowledge that the report was published after the stock transfer in this case took place. However, the recommendation was based on good practice and this has therefore been taken into consideration as part of our investigation.
- The poor knowledge and information management in this case has had a significant impact on our investigation into the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues of complaint.
- A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records so it can satisfy itself, the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman) that it took all reasonable steps to meet its repair obligations.
- This Service would expect the landlord to record when repairs were reported, logged and completed. We would also expect it to have obtained full property records (including repair records) from Catalyst prior to the merger. This would allow it to properly assess the condition of its properties and maintain them appropriately in line with its contractual obligations.
- The landlord’s failure to keep proper records has impacted on its performance in relation to the repairs reported by the resident in this case.
- As the landlord has not demonstrated that it maintained adequate records we have found that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.
- We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on KIM. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.
Handling of the resident’s reports of repairs
- Due to the landlord’s poor record keeping we have been unable to determine when the resident first reported the issue with her toilet or confirm how often she had done so. We have therefore been unable to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably in response to the reports. This is a serious failing.
- The resident stated in her stage 1 complaint that she had reported that her toilet was not working 4 or 5 times “in as many months”. She repeated this concern 4 weeks later on 11 June 2023 when she asked for an update on the complaint.
- It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to take any action to resolve the toilet repair in the 4 weeks following the complaint. This caused the resident to invest unnecessary time and trouble in chasing for an update.
- On 14 June 2023 the landlord raised an inspection of the property to include all the repair issues raised by the resident. It was reasonable that the landlord ordered a full survey due to the number of repair issues raised by the resident. It was not however reasonable that it took it a month to do so. We have not been provided with any evidence relating to the survey. It is not clear whether this is because the survey did not go ahead or due to further poor record keeping. Regardless, this was a further failing and it has not been possible to assess whether the landlord responded appropriately in the circumstances.
- On 23 June 2023 the resident told the landlord that the boiler had been repaired. She also reported that the toilet had been unusable since January 2023. She said she was awaiting spinal surgery and needed use of the downstairs toilet. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord assessed the situation in light of the information the resident had shared. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to review the details relating to the repair and determined whether anything could be done to expedite the matter. It did not do so, and this was inappropriate.
- On 14 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord. She:
- Said the contractor had attended that day and advised it had ordered a new back door in April 2023 but the landlord had not authorised the work. It said it had not ordered a new window for the main bedroom when it had last attended but had now done so.
- Asked the landlord to complete a full survey of the property including the front door and all the windows.
- The toilet had been fixed the day before but was still leaking from a pipe joint. She had reported this leak at the time she reported the flush.
- The landlord replied to the resident the following day and said it would update her the following week. We have not seen evidence that it did so. This was an example of poor communication.
- On 26 July 2023 the resident asked the landlord for an update as it had not contacted her. She said the toilet was still leaking and none of the other repairs had been completed. She said the situation was getting her down. She escalated her complaint to stage 2 complaint the following day.
- At the end of November 2023 the landlord replaced the back door and loft hatch. It is not clear why it took the landlord 4 months to complete these works but that it did was unreasonable. We have seen no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident during these delays either. This is a further communication failing.
- On 11 December 2023 this Service contacted the landlord in relation to the resident’s complaint. Internal landlord emails of 19 December 2023 show that it had not raised repairs for the front door, windows, insulation or the slow leak from the toilet. It is not clear why it had failed to do so despite being made aware of these issues and them also being subject to a formal complaint.
- On 28 December 2023 the resident contacted the landlord. She said its surveyor had visited her on 26 October 2023 and had made a list of recommendations including:
- Replacement of all windows with UPVC.
- Replacement of external doors.
- Loft insulation to be increased to meet regulations.
- The landlord replied to the resident the following day. It said it had been unable to locate the surveyor’s report but had requested information from its repair teams. It said it would update her. We have not seen evidence that it did so. This is a further communication failing.
- On 3 January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord again and provided the name of the surveyor who had attended along with the telephone number he had provided. She said that while an operative had attended that day and had replaced one windowpane, no work had been completed to the toilet or the front door.
- Internal landlord emails show that the surveyor who had attended the resident’s property had since left the organisation. It had also been unable to locate a report relating to the resident’s property. This is a further record keeping failing and led to avoidable delays in resolving the repair issues.
- Internal emails show that the landlord ordered a replacement front door on 9 January 2024 and it was installed on 23 January 2024. That it took the landlord 8 months to replace the door was unreasonable.
- On 8 February 2024 the landlord repaired the slow leak in the downstairs toilet. It took the landlord almost 7 months from first report of the leak to do so. This was a considerable departure from the 10 working day timeframe outlined in its policy and was unreasonable.
- On 3 June 2024 the landlord carried out an insulation survey. On 3 July 2024 it carried out a window survey. It is inappropriate that it took the landlord a year following the resident’s complaint to carry out these surveys. The outcomes of the surveys were unclear and the landlord has not provided accompanying inspection reports. We are therefore unable to determine whether the landlord has appropriately responded to their findings.
- The landlord offered the resident £300 for time, trouble and inconvenience in relation to its handling of her repairs. We do not consider that this is proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident.
- The resident has paid approximately £568 per month (taking account some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period of the landlord’s maladministration. This Service considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time that the resident’s enjoyment of the property has been affected by outstanding repairs. We have considered that the maladministration took place over 13 months which spans the timeframe between the stage 1 complaint and the landlord carrying out the window survey.
- Taking into account the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £738 compensation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 10% of the total rent during the period in question. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account. The Ombudsman will award additional compensation in recognition of other failings it has identified, and for distress and inconvenience.
- Overall, the landlord has delayed unreasonably in responding to the repairs reported by the resident. It has failed to maintain adequate records or repair reports and of the actions it has taken. The landlord’s poor handling of the repairs has caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble in repeatedly chasing for updates. The landlord has not yet demonstrated that it has taken reasonable action to resolve the resident’s concerns about the windows and insulation. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs reported by the resident.
Response to the resident’s concerns about her contact details and her access to her tenancy account online.
- Due to failings in the landlord’s record keeping it is not clear when the resident first asked it to change the contact details it held on file.
- The resident said however in her stage 1 complaint that she had asked the landlord several times to change the telephone number on her account. She said that this was because her home phone was not in use and she was therefore not receiving calls and messages to this number. The landlord has not disputed this account.
- The resident asked the landlord in her stage 1 complaint to change the telephone number on the account. She also pointed out that she had not been made aware of repair appointments as a result of the landlord using the wrong number. This had caused her inconvenience when operatives had attended when she was busy working from home.
- In June 2023, 6 weeks after the resident asked the landlord in her complaint to update her contact details, the complaint team contacted her again on her old number. This understandably led the resident to believe that the landlord had not considered her request.
- Within its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it would seek advice on changing her contact details and provide her with an update. It is not clear why the landlord was unable to action changing the resident’s contact details. This should have been a routine and straightforward task.
- On 28 July 2023 when she escalated her complaint, the resident told the landlord had managed to change her contact details herself as she had been given “limited” access to her online account. That the resident had to wait 11 weeks in order to make changes herself to details that the landlord should have been able to amend straightaway was unreasonable.
- The landlord acknowledged within its final response that the resident, as a “former Catalyst resident”, did not have full functionality on the online account. It did not explain why this was the case 8 months after the merger was finalised. That residents who were previously tenants of Catalyst did not have access to the same facilities as other residents for such a long period was unfair.
- It is accepted that during mergers there can be a period of change where services are impacted. We would expect however that the landlord would try to ensure that such change caused minimal inconvenience for a minimal period. It would also be reasonable for it to implement some interim measures so that residents were not disadvantaged.
- The landlord’s merger with Catalyst was not a hurried event. In fact the merger happened over a period of a year when Catalyst became a subsidiary of the landlord. We would therefore have reasonably expected the landlord to consider issues such as the transferring of online accounts during this time.
- It is not clear from the information provided by the landlord whether the resident is now able to access all features of the online account.
- Overall, the landlord delayed unreasonably in changing the resident’s contact details on its system. It also failed to act to resolve her concerns about accessing her online account. This caused the resident unnecessary time, trouble and inconvenience. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s response to this issue.
Complaint handling
- The resident has stated that she first complained to the landlord on 5 March 2023. The landlord has not disputed this statement.
- The landlord has not provided evidence of the resident’s first complaint. It is clear however from the records that it has provided about the subsequent complaint that it did not raise a complaint at that time. This was inappropriate and a complaint handling failing.
- The resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint again on 14 May 2023. On 11 June 2023 the resident asked the landlord for an update on the status of her complaint. It is not clear from the records when the landlord responded. This
- On 23 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said she had been told the week before that she would receive an email from her complaint handler. She said she had not received an email and asked for an update on her complaint. The landlord replied on the same day and said the complaint handler had left her a voicemail the day before. The resident replied and advised the voicemail had been left on her home phone which was not in use. She reminded the landlord that she had asked that it remove her home phone number from the account and add her mobile phone number.
- The resident had expressed frustration within her initial complaint that the landlord persisted in using old contact information. That it continued to use these out of use details for the purposes of handling her complaint would understandably have made the resident feel that her concerns had not been considered.
- It took the landlord 30 working days to provide its stage 1 response. This far exceeded the 10 working day timeframe outline in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and its own policy. The landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for this unreasonable delay within its response. This was inappropriate.
- The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response addressed the repair issues raised by the resident. It gave appointments for works and said it would continue to monitor the repairs. This was appropriate.
- The landlord did not however provide any details of when the repairs had initially been reported, explain the delays in their completion, or apologise for the impact on the resident. This was unreasonable.
- The landlord also did not address the impact of the repair issues on the resident within its complaint response. She told the landlord within the complaint that the cost of keeping her property warm was extremely high due to the doors, windows and insulation. The landlord should reasonably have addressed the impact of living in a cold property and high energy bills within its response.
- The Code states that landlords must address all issues raised in the complaint. In this case the landlord did not address the resident’s issue in accessing her online account in its stage 1 response. This was a failing.
- The landlord did not outline within its stage 1 response whether the resident’s complaint was upheld. The Code states that the landlord must make clear within its complaint response its decision on the complaint and its reasons for the decision. It failed to do so in this case and this was a further complaint handling failing.
- The resident replied to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and asked it to clarify whether the appointment for the doors and windows was for an inspection rather than repair works. She emailed the landlord again on 4 July 2023. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to either enquiry. This was a further example for poor communication.
- The resident made her stage 2 complaint on 28 July 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 11 December 2023 after it had been contacted by this Service. A resident should not have to contact this Service in order to obtain a response to their complaint.
- It took the landlord 106 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This was a significant departure from the Code and its own policy and was a serious complaint handling failing.
- Within the stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that its stage 1 complaint response had been delayed. Referring to the response as being “somewhat” outside the timeframe in its policy was misleading. It was far outside the timeframe and the landlord should reasonably have made this clearer in its stage 2 response.
- The landlord acknowledged and apologised in its stage 2 response for its delays in escalating the complaint. It accepted that this was a complaint handling failure. This was appropriate.
- The stage 2 complaint response provided repairs appointments for the toilet, front door and windows. The records show it failed to complete the repairs at this appointment. The landlord therefore mismanaged the resident’s expectations causing her further unnecessary distress.
- The landlord also said in the stage 2 complaint that it would carry out a survey of the property once it had carried out repairs to the toilet, door and windows. It did not provide a timeframe for the survey. The resident therefore reasonably expected that the landlord would carry the survey out promptly. It did not do so until June and July 2024. It therefore failed again to effectively manage the resident’s expectations.
- The landlord acknowledged its failings in relation to communications and delays in booking repairs. It explained measures that it had put in place since the initial complaint and that it felt this would prevent the issues from reoccurring. This was appropriate.
- The landlord offered the resident £300 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience and a further £300 for “extensive” failures in complaint handling. This offer went some way towards putting things right. It cannot however be considered to provide reasonable redress for the detriment experienced by the resident.
- This is because it has not evidenced that all of the repairs which formed part of the complaint have been reasonably addressed. Nor do we consider that the landlord has adequately addressed the impact of its failings on the resident. We therefore do not consider that the compensation is proportionate and further compensation has been awarded.
- Overall, the landlord:
- Unreasonably delayed in raising a stage 1 complaint and in providing its stage 1 complaint response.
- Failed to address all aspects of the complaint in its stage 1 response.
- Did not communicate reasonably with the resident throughout the complaints process.
- Did not consider the full impact of the delayed repairs on the resident.
- Failed to explain whether the stage 1 complaint was upheld and why.
- Unreasonably delayed in providing its stage 2 complaint response.
- Failed to resolve all the issues raised by the resident during the complaints process.
- Failed to offer proportionate financial redress.
- We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
- Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of several repairs.
- Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her contact details and her access to her tenancy account online.
- Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
- Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- Within 28 working days of the date of this report the landlord must:
- Pay the resident £938 compensation comprising:
- £738 in relation to reduced enjoyment of the property due to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
- £100 in relation to time and trouble due to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her contact details and her access to her tenancy account online.
- £100 in relation to distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s complaint handling.
- The amount ordered is in addition to the compensation offered by the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response.
- Confirm to the resident and this Service its position in relation to works required to the windows and insulation. If works were recommended by the specialist surveys it should provide a timeframe for their completion.
- Confirm whether the resident now has full access to all features of the online account. If she does not it should explain why not and when this will be resolved.
- Pay the resident £938 compensation comprising: