Peabody Trust (202327384)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327384

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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the behaviour of operatives attending his home to complete repairs.
2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the Housing Association landlord. His tenancy started in 2019. The landlord has recorded that the resident is vulnerable. He has said he has rheumatoid arthritis and a skin condition for which he receives hospital treatment.
On 1 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report that he had no heating and hot water in his property. An operative attended the next day to repair the resident’s boiler, however he was unable to complete the job and told the resident he would need to order parts.
The landlord rearranged the appointment for 8 March 2023 which the resident’s housing officer and 2 operatives attended. The resident reported that it was a cold day and when one of the operatives entered his home, he tried to close the door after him. The second operative put his foot on the threshold of the door and held the door handle to stop the resident from closing it. The operatives then left.
In a handwritten letter dated 13 March 2023 the resident made a complaint about this incident. He said that he felt bullied and attacked by the operative’s conduct. He said that he watched them in their van after the incident using hand gestures, which he found rude and disrespectful.
On 10 July 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint which it said it had received on 26 April 2023. It said that:
1. it had spoken with the operative who had explained that he had put his foot in the door for health and safety reasons as he was concerned about his colleague being locked inside the resident’s house and he denied making hand gestures towards the resident
2. The landlord said that following its investigation, it could not find evidence to substantiate the resident’s claims that the landlord had conspired against him or behaved in a discriminatory way towards him
3. It offered him £100 compensation for his time, trouble, and inconvenience
4. It also acknowledged that the resident did not receive its complaints response within its published timescales and offered the resident a further £100 compensation for this
In July 2023, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the complaint response. The landlord told the resident that he could escalate his complaint to stage 2. It offered the resident increased compensation on 18 July 2023. The resident accepted the compensation, and this was paid into his bank account.
On 16 November 2023, the resident sent an email to the landlord saying that the landlord had bullied and misled him. He said that he felt that the contractors had been racist towards him and that he felt that the compensation award was insufficient. The landlord responded the same day to tell the resident that it had closed his complaint on 27 July 2023, and he had accepted the compensation. Therefore, it would not be escalating his complaint to stage 2. The resident contacted this Service, and we contacted the landlord on his behalf, asking it to provide a written complaint response by 28 December 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 December 2023. It said that:
1. it had closed the resident’s first complaint in line with its policy
2. it outlined its expectations about the conduct of its contractors and described the process it would follow to investigate any allegations against contractors
3. it said that the resident should contact his GP if he was suffering trauma following the incident, as the landlord was not qualified to address this
4. it also signposted the resident to its insurers should he wish to pursue a personal injury claim
5. it had raised with its contractors that they must abide by the terms of their contract with the landlord that they must always be polite and courteous when dealing with residents
6. it noted that the landlord had previously offered compensation to the resident, which he had accepted, and therefore it would not be offering further compensation
On 2 January 2024, the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said that he felt bullied into accepting compensation at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure and he felt that the offer of compensation was inadequate, given the trauma he had suffered. The landlord acknowledged his request on 22 January 2024 and said that it would respond within 15 working days. On 12 February 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said that:
1. it apologised to the resident if he felt bullied, and for closing his complaint
2. it had recently arranged training for its complaints team and that this was ongoing
3. it assessed compensation with reference to its complaints and compensation policy
4. it reiterated advice about the resident contacting his GP for support and the landlord’s insurance team if he wishes to pursue a personal injury claim
5. it apologised that the behaviour of the repairs operative fell short of the resident’s expectations, and this had been fed back to the contractors
6. the landlord could not tell the resident whether any further action had been taken as the contractors were a separate company and this was a confidential staffing matter
7. it apologised for delays in responding to the resident’s complaints and for not escalating the resident’s complaint at an earlier stage
8. it offered the resident an extra £375 for its complaints handling failings and £100 for his time, trouble, inconvenience and for the poor service and conduct from its contractor and their operative
On 19 April 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming the points it had discussed in a telephone call with the resident earlier that day. It said that:
1. it had agreed to refer the resident to its support team
2. there had been delays in processing his compensation award, for this reason, the landlord had agreed to increase the resident’s compensation by £400 for further complaint handling delays and communication errors and for not considering the overall impact on the resident as a vulnerable person
3. the total amount of compensation awarded was £1075
The resident was unhappy with the level of compensation offered to him and referred his complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has referred to several new issues which do not relate to the compliant under investigation. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint made in March 2023, and concluded in February 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if necessary.
The resident has said that he considers that his health has been affected because of the matters raised in his complaint. He has asked for further compensation for personal injury.
Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to prove legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. This is because we are not medically qualified and cannot assess whether there is a causal link between the actions of the landlord and any deterioration in the resident’s health.
It is noted that the landlord has provided its insurance details for the resident so he can make a personal injury claim if he wishes to. This was a proper response by the landlord as personal injury claims fall outside the landlord’s complaints policy and are better suited for consideration by the landlord’s insurer. The Ombudsman does not investigate insurance matters and therefore we cannot comment on this process further. The Ombudsman can, however, consider matters such as distress and inconvenience.
The resident has raised the issue of equalities legislation and has said that the landlord has breached said legislation by ignoring his vulnerabilities and discriminating against him because of his race. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide on equalities legislation and whether the landlord is in breach of its legal responsibilities in this regard. The resident will need to seek his own independent legal advice should he wish to pursue this aspect of his complaint. The Ombudsman can, however, consider whether the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about discrimination in its complaints handling.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractors.

The landlord’s repairs policy says that it aims to make sure that its appointment slots are convenient for residents, and it agrees times that fit with the resident’s commitments and lifestyle.
The policy also says that it requires its service providers to behave appropriately while in the resident’s home, showing respect for both the resident and their belongings. “Our Responsive Repairs Policy is key to delivering our commitment to equality, diversity, and inclusion. Our service respects, is aware of, and is sensitive to, the diversity of our resident.”
As part of our investigations, the Ombudsman considers both the events which prompted the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original service failure.
The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about the conduct of contractors in its complaints responses. It conceded that there had been a service failure and apologised to the resident. It said that it had not seen evidence that the landlord, or its contractors, had discriminated against the resident.
It is clear that the resident expected more feedback or consequence because of the contractor’s reported behaviour. However, as the landlord had highlighted in its complaints responses, the operatives were not directly employed by the landlord. Therefore, it could not direct that the contractors take specific action against the operatives. Moreover, this would be a confidential employment matter that the landlord would not be entitled to disclose to the resident.
The landlord identified in its complaints response what it would do to improve its services, which showed that it was committed to learning from the resident’s complaint. It said that it had raised the resident’s concerns with the contractor and reminded them of its expected standards of conduct when working with its residents. This was a fair and reasonable response.
The landlord also acknowledged the impact that this had had on the resident and signposted him to its insurers should he wish to pursue a personal injury claim. The landlord also offered the resident extra support, in recognition of his vulnerabilities, which was also appropriate and in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £200 following its stage 1 and 2 complaints in recognition of his distress and inconvenience. An extra £400 was offered in April 2024, which included an amount for communication errors and its failure to consider the impact on him because of his vulnerabilities. However, as this amount was offered after we had accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation, it will not be considered as part of this investigation.
We note that the resident is unhappy with the outcome of his complaint and considers that the redress offered was inadequate. He has said that he has suffered trauma and mental distress because of his encounter with the contractor and has attended counselling for this. We acknowledge that this has been upsetting for the resident and appreciate how difficult the experience must have been for him.
It may be helpful to highlight that we do not look at redress by awarding ‘damages’ in the way that a court or insurance company might. Instead, we will look at whether a landlord has made an offer of redress that proportionately recognises any likely level of distress and inconvenience experienced by a resident due to any identified service failure on a landlord’s part. In doing so, we refer to our own remedies guidance which describes the range of financial awards the Ombudsman makes in relation to the level of service failure found.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s response was reasonable. It acknowledged its failings and took steps to put things right. Its offer of compensation was within the range of financial remedies the Ombudsman would make where there has been a failure that had an adverse impact on the resident.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days unless it agrees an extension with the complainant. If it escalates a complaint to stage 2, an independent review of the complaint will be conducted. The landlord will provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of receiving the request.
In this case, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was issued 43 days outside of published timescales, which was unreasonable.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint in November 2023. The landlord rejected his request on the basis that it had closed his complaint in July and paid him compensation. The landlord’s complaints policy effective at the time said that “All requests for escalation to stage two must be received within 10 working days of receiving the stage one response”. The Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (“the Code”) says that “landlords should not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action.”
The reasons given by the landlord for not escalating the resident’s complaint do not correspond with the section of the landlord’s policy which outlined when a landlord could refuse to consider a complaint. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s reason for refusing to escalate the complaint unreasonable.
It was only after the resident had asked this Service to intervene, that the landlord issued a new stage 1 complaint response in December 2023. The Ombudsman considers that it would have been fairer and resulted in a more expeditious outcome for the resident, for the landlord to have escalated the resident’s complaint at this time.
The Code says that “Complaint policies and processes should set out the circumstances in which a landlord can exercise discretion in how to respond to a complaint and who has the power to exercise that discretion. Landlords should exercise discretion appropriately and provide clear explanations to residents when doing so” The landlord did not do so, which caused detriment to the resident as it delayed a final resolution to his complaint.
These issues were addressed in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint and later correspondence. The landlord:
1. acknowledged delays at stage 1 and in escalating his complaint to stage 2
2. accepted that it had not processed the resident’s complaint in line with The Code
3. recognised that it could have issued a stage 2 response in November rather than a new stage 1 response
4. recognised that there were delays in communicating with him
The landlord apologised for these failings and offered the resident compensation of £475. This compensation was in line with both the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there had been a service failure that had an adverse effect on the resident. A further amount of compensation for complaints handling was included with the £400 offered in April 2024, however this will not be considered as part of this investigation as it was offered after the Ombudsman had agreed to investigate the resident’s complaint.
The landlord has outlined the reasons for its delays in responding and said that it had recruited more staff to deal with complaints. It had also fed back to the complaints team the lessons learned in the case and said that it had arranged further training for its complaints handlers. This was a reasonable step which showed that the landlord looked to learn from the outcome of the resident’s complaint.
Overall, the landlord’s response was line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles which says that landlords should be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Ombudsman therefore finds that the landlord’s offer of redress to the resident satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in relation to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s contractors, the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to this investigation, which the Ombudsman considers to be reasonable.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, regarding the landlord’s complaints handling, the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to this investigation, which the Ombudsman considers to be reasonable.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord should arrange to pay the resident the compensation of £1075 offered to him at the conclusion of its internal complaints procedure.