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

Peabody Trust (202329536)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329536

Peabody Trust

7 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of leaks.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as a leaseholder since December 2002. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
  2. On 6 December 2022, the landlord responded to a complaint about leaks from a neighbour’s balcony that were coming through the resident’s ceiling. In its response, the landlord apologised for the time taken to fix the leaks, acknowledged damage caused, and offered compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  3. The resident told the landlord on 25 September 2023 that the earlier repairs had not been effective. She said on 23 September 2023, rainwater dripped through her living room ceiling and damaged personal goods. She said the leaks were causing significant problems as she was trying to sell her property. The landlord acknowledged this as a new complaint on 4 October 2023.
  4. On 27 October 2023, the resident reported new leaks. An inspection on 6 November 2023, said the leaks could be coming from any location on the balcony and it was unable to offer a temporary solution. It suggested extensive repair work that would take up to 10 days to complete. Because of the scope and cost of the work, the landlord said it needed a further survey and approval.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord several times between September and December 2023 for an update. On 11 January 2024, the landlord told the resident it was sorry for the “severe delay” in providing an update. It said it had sent a quote for approval, but it needed to do a further assessment. It said it would soon decide whether to do the repairs but suggested it would approve the work due to the quality of earlier repairs.
  6. In its complaint response on 29 February 2024, the landlord said a survey on 22 January 2024, recommended major repairs to rectify the “poor-quality work” done in 2022. It said it had agreed the repairs, but it had put them on hold due to the need for a section 20 consultation under the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985). It apologised for showing a lack of understanding of the resident’s circumstances and acknowledged inconvenience caused, a lack of communication, and the delay in responding to the complaint. Because of this it offered compensation of £1,050.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 5 March 2024. She wanted the landlord to find the source of the leaks and to complete the repairs in a timely manner. She also wanted compensation.
  8. On 21 March 2024, a contractor found a blocked downpipe, which it said meant rainwater was unable to drain away. It cleared blockages and removed debris.
  9. In its final response on 16 April 2024, the landlord withdrew the compensation offered in its stage 1 response. It said it would not pay compensation for damaged items and “communal challenges”. On the repairs, it said the work was not subject to a section 20 consultation, as a contractor had cleared a blockage on 21 March 2024. It said because of this, it was “reasonable to conclude” that the leaks in September 2023, were not caused by earlier repairs. It said its complaint response had not given adequate information about next steps. It apologised for the level of service and delay in responding to the escalated complaint. It offered £650 compensation for inconvenience, the poor level of service, and complaint handling.
  10. On 30 April 2024, following further contact from the resident, the landlord told her it could not do repairs due to a legal claim made by a neighbour. The resident continued to report leaks and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. In October 2024, the resident told the Ombudsman that the leaks continued. She said she had lost her ninth property buyer, and she wanted the landlord to repair the leaks, and pay compensation that reflected the stress, detriment, and inconvenience caused.

 

 

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of leaks

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy applies to all homes and communal areas where it has a responsibility for repairs under statute, regulation, or contractual obligation, such as a lease agreement.
  2. The repairs policy says the landlord has a general responsibility to repair and maintain common areas. It says the leaseholder is normally responsible for all repairs within their home, and the landlord is normally responsible for communal areas, and repairs resulting from its action or inaction. It says it always follows the lease when deciding the responsibilities of leaseholders and the landlord.
  3. The landlord’s lease agreement with the resident says the landlord will maintain the roof, balconies, and roof terraces. It is the Ombudsman’s view that under the terms of the lease, the landlord was responsible for repairing the balcony and for any damage caused resulting from its action or inaction.
  4. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete non-urgent repairs within 28 calendar days. Work that is complex in nature and requires either a specialist contractor or a technical diagnosis will be completed within 60 calendar days. It says where a communal repair exceeds £250 per home, it will follow a section 20 process as set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985).
  5. The Ombudsman has noted that the resident originally complained to the landlord on 19 August 2022, about how it had dealt with a leak from the balcony above her property. She said there had been no problems with leaks until the landlord did repairs to the neighbour’s balcony in April 2022. In its response on 6 December 2022, the landlord set out the work it had done and said it completed repairs on 22 November 2022. It accepted the repairs had taken longer than expected and offered compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience. The Ombudsman has found that this was a reasonable response at this time because the landlord met its obligation to do repairs but acknowledged the effect of the delays.
  6. On 4 January 2023, the resident told the landlord that a new leak had affected her property. The landlord’s repairs record show it arranged an inspection and leak test, and on 20 January 2023 the resident confirmed no dye had seeped through. It is unclear what work the landlord did following the inspection, but repairs records show it recommended a visit from a leak detection team to find the cause of the “ongoing leak”. On 12 May 2023, the landlord’s records show there was a report of a leak affecting a neighbouring flat. The records say it completed works on the balcony on 30 May 2023. The Ombudsman has not seen detail of what these works were but has noted that the landlord responded to individual reports of leaks, but did not find the source of the leak at this time.
  7. On 25 September 2023, the resident reported a leak from the balcony above her flat. She said earlier repairs had not been effective, and this was causing her significant problems as she was trying to sell her flat. The landlord told the resident it had opened a complaint case on 4 October 2023. On 10 October 2023, the landlord asked the contractor for an update on the leaks. The contractor responded and said it had booked an appointment with the neighbour to inspect the balcony.
  8. On 16 October 2023, the officer dealing with the complaint contacted the resident and apologised for not making contact sooner. They said they would work to get an action plan in place and give an update as soon as possible. The resident’s records show a contractor inspected the balcony on 19 October 2023. The Ombudsman has noted that this was 19 working days after the resident reported the leak. Although the landlord had opened a complaint case, the Ombudsman would still expect the landlord to arrange inspections and repairs in line with its repairs policy. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this inspection should have taken place sooner.
  9. The landlord discussed the findings of the inspection with the contractor and on 31 October 2023, arranged for another contractor to attend on 6 November 2023. By this time, 31 working days had passed since the resident reported the leak. Although the landlord had arranged an inspection, it had not taken any action to prevent or reduce the leak. The Ombudsman has found there was a lack of urgency in the landlord’s response, it was not meeting the timescales in its repairs policy, and this was a failure to meet its obligations to the resident.
  10. The inspection on 6 November 2023, found the resident’s flat had leaks coming from the balcony above. It noted the balcony was approximately 90 square meters, and said the leaks could be coming in from any location on the balcony. It said it was unable to offer any kind of temporary repair solution, as it had “no idea” where the water was coming in. It suggested erecting scaffolding to allow it to remove slabs and other items. It said it could then apply a 2-coat liquid system and 1 layer of reinforcement fleece. It said the duration of works would be 7 to 10 days.
  11. On the 13 November 2023, the landlord’s records noted that because of cost it was unable to do the work until it had given approval. On 14 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and complained that she had no update, and it was not meeting timescales. She wanted her complaint escalated and an urgent update. The landlord’s records show it sent the work for approval on 17 November 2023. The resident chased the landlord for an update again on 21 November 2023. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s request for an update. By this time, 41 working days had passed since the resident reported the leak, and the resident had no update following the inspection on 6 November 2023. This was a continued failure by the landlord to meet its repairs obligations. There was also a failure to communicate with the resident.
  12. On the 12 December 2023, an internal email said the resident had not received a response and noted she was about to lose her seventh property buyer. It noted the resident needed information on when it would approve the work so she could provide this to the prospective buyer. A further internal email on 18 December 2023 asked for an urgent update and asked for a joint visit with a contractor to agree the scope of works. The resident again chased the landlord for an update on 18 December 2023.
  13. On 11 January 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident and apologised for the “severe delay” in responding. It said because of the complexity and cost of the recommended work, it had put the process on hold until the landlord’s surveyor made an assessment. It said due to an oversight it had not made a referral for an assessment, but it would make a new referral as soon as possible, which would decide whether the works would go ahead. It said it was confident that it would approve the repairs due to the quality of earlier work.
  14. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord finally provided an update to the resident 75 working days after she reported the leak. The Ombudsman accepts that the proposed works were complex and required approval. However, the lack of updates was a significant failing by the landlord, which caused inconvenience to the resident. The landlord was aware of the resident’s need for information about the repairs, as her property sale depended on this. There is evidence the resident contacted the landlord for an update on several occasions. The failure to communicate with the resident was maladministration. The Ombudsman has also noted that the landlord gave the resident the clear impression that it would approve the work. However, it did not give a timescale for when this would happen.
  15. Records provided by the landlord show a visit took place on 17 January 2024 to assess the work needed. On 2 February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord for an update. She said she had tried calling several times. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with an update after the visit on 17 January 2024.
  16. In its complaint response on 29 February 2024, the landlord said it had approved the scope of the repairs on 27 February 2024. However, it said it had put the work on hold due to the requirement for a section 20 consultation. It acknowledged that it should have considered the need for a section 20 consultation before. The response acknowledged damage to decoration, frustration with the lack of communication and action on repairs, and distress caused by the effect the leak had on property sales. Because of this, it offered £1,050 compensation. This included £650 for time, trouble, and inconvenience, and £300 for impact relating to loss of sales, remedial repairs, and damage to the flat.
  17. The Ombudsman has found this was a reasonable response at this time, as the landlord acknowledged the effect the leaks, delays, and lack of communication had on the resident. However, the Ombudsman has noted that it had not done the repairs 6 months after the leak was reported and the response did not provide clarity on when it would do the repairs. This was a failure to provide the resident with certainty on when the landlord would meet its obligation to do repairs.
  18. On 21 March 2024, in response to a report of a leak in the communal hallway, contractors attended the property and removed blockages from a downpipe. It said upon inspection, it found the downpipe blocked, causing water to overflow. It said the outlet was set higher than the roof surface, and water was unable to drain away fully due to this.
  19. The resident escalated her complaint on 5 March 2024, as she wanted a clear plan to resolve the leaks. In its final response, the landlord said the work did not now require a section 20 notice, as a contractor fixed the leak by unblocking a downpipe on 25 March 2024. It said because of this it was “reasonable to conclude” that the earlier repairs did not cause the leaks in September 2023. The landlord said it had failed to set out the next steps in its complaint response and did not monitor the works until satisfactory completion. It said this was a service failure and offered compensation of £350 for time and trouble because of this.
  20. In its final response, the landlord withdrew the earlier offer of compensation. On the £300 previously offered for impact on sales, remedial repairs, and damage, it said structural damage to the property, such as water damage to a ceiling, was the resident’s responsibility as a leaseholder. On damage to personal items, it said it expected residents to have contents insurance. It apologised for the effect the resident said the leaks had on potential sales. However, it said it had an evidence-based approach and would not make compensation awards based on unfounded beliefs or whether something was likely to happen or not. On compensation of £650 previously offered for time, trouble, and inconvenience, it said it was unable to offer an individual resident compensation for “communal challenges”.
  21. On 21 April 2024, the resident told the landlord its response did not reflect the situation she had endured for 2 years. She said there were currently 4 leaks. She said the balcony was not a communal space but was the roof to her flat. She said the response did not acknowledge that no permanent repairs had taken place, and the residents had unblocked the downpipe on multiple occasions, and it was not the cause of the leak affecting her property. The landlord responded on 29 April 2024 and said “communal” included balconies, roofs, downpipes, and gutters.
  22. The Ombudsman has found the landlord’s final response was unreasonable. This is because on the balance of probabilities, the landlord did not do the repairs that it was obliged to do under the terms of the lease. Instead, it said it had unblocked a downpipe and this resolved the leak. However, the resident reported that leaks continued after the landlord unblocked the downpipe. She also told the landlord that residents had unblocked the pipe previously and this did not stop the leaks. Although unblocking a downpipe may have allowed standing water to drain away and reduce the effect of leaks, it did not solve the root cause of rainwater seeping through the balcony. The landlord had commissioned a survey which found a way to stop the leaks. The landlord approved this work but then did not do the repairs. This was maladministration by the landlord.
  23. The Ombudsman is also concerned about the reasons the landlord gave for withdrawing compensation in its final response. The Ombudsman accepts that when a resident escalates a complaint, the landlord will review the response given at stage 1 and may change its view on compensation awarded. This is clearly set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to act reasonably when reviewing compensation previously offered. It is the Ombudsman’s view that although internal decoration is the resident’s responsibility as a leaseholder, water damage resulting from the landlord’s action or inaction is the landlord’s responsibility under the terms of its repairs policy. In addition, the lease agreement clearly sets out that the landlord will maintain the roof, balconies, and roof terraces. The failure to do the repairs led to distress, inconvenience, and loss for the resident, and it was reasonable for the landlord to compensate the resident for losses related to these “communal challenges” in its first complaint response. The withdrawal of this part of the compensation offer was unreasonable.
  24. On the 29 April 2024, in response to the resident reporting further leaks, the landlord said because of a neighbour’s legal action over the leaks, it was unable to do repairs. In October 2024, the resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord had done no further repairs, and the leaks continued. She said she had lost further sales because of this. The Ombudsman has found that this was a further failure by the landlord to meet its obligations to the resident. This is because the legal action by a neighbour did not end the landlord’s obligations to the resident. At the very least, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to make temporary repairs to stop the leaks getting worse, pending the outcome of the legal action.
  25. Overall, the Ombudsman has found there were several significant failures by the landlord in the way it dealt with the reports of leaks. The landlord initially made attempts to do repairs, but after the resident complained in September 2023, the landlord did no further significant work to address the cause of the leaks. The only work done was unblocking a downpipe, which may have reduced the amount of rainwater leaking into the property, but did not resolve the problem. There was also a lack of urgency from the landlord in the way it arranged inspections. This meant it did not meet the timescales set out in its repairs policy. There was also a failure to communicate with the resident, which caused frustration and upset. Following its final response, where it unreasonably withdrew an earlier offer of compensation, the landlord then refused to do repairs because of a neighbour’s legal action. Over a year after reporting the leaks, the resident reported the landlord had not fixed the leaks. Because of this, the Ombudsman has found the landlord did not meet its obligations to the resident.
  26. Individually these failures are maladministration. Collectively they amount to severe maladministration. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, severe maladministration is found in cases where there has been a serious failure. These failures led to a loss of enjoyment of her home and caused distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord offered £350 compensation for time and trouble in its final response. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was insufficient in the circumstances. Because of this the Ombudsman is ordering the landlord to pay £1,960 compensation to the resident, which consists of:
    1. For loss of enjoyment of her home for the period from 25 September 2023 to 31 October 2024, the landlord should pay the resident £20 a week. This is 58 weeks at £20 per week = £1,160.
    2. The landlord should consider further payments for loss of enjoyment of the home based on this weekly amount until it has completed the repairs.
    3. For time and trouble, the landlord should pay the resident £500, inclusive of the £350 already offered, if it has not already paid this.
    4. For distress caused, the landlord should pay the resident £300.
  27. The Ombudsman is also ordering the landlord to put in place a plan to fix the leak affecting the resident’s property. It should advise the resident within 4 weeks what the plan is and should set out when it expects to complete the repairs.

 

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out how it will respond to complaints. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with different versions of its complaints policy. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s actions against the policy that was issued on 5 June 2023.
  2. The landlord’s policy says its complaints process has 2 stages. It says it will log new complaints within 5 working days and respond at stage 1 within 10 working days unless it agrees an extension with the resident. All requests for escalation to stage 2 must be received within 10 working days of receiving the stage 1 response. It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of it receiving a request.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out its approach to providing remedies to complaints. It says when a resident escalates their complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process, it does not guarantee the same award of compensation. It says the amount of compensation may be decreased, increased, or remain the same.
  4. The resident originally complained to the landlord on 19 August 2022, about how it had dealt with a leak from the balcony. The landlord responded to this complaint on 6 December 2022. It accepted the repairs had taken longer than expected and offered compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  5. On 25 September 2023, the resident told the landlord that earlier repairs had not resolved the leak. The landlord responded on 28 September 2023 and asked if she wanted it to open a new complaint. The resident asked the landlord if it could make it clear that it was not a new case. The landlord said it would not be able to re-open a closed case. The Ombudsman has found this was reasonable as there was no evidence that the resident requested an escalation within 10 days, as set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 October 2023 and told the resident that a case manager would contact her soon. On 16 October 2023, following the resident asking for an update on the response, the landlord contacted her and apologised for not making contact sooner. It said it would come back with an update as soon as possible.
  7. On 25 October 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 as she had not received a response. She said the situation was extremely stressful.
  8. Records show the resident chased the landlord for a response on 31 October 2023. On 14 November 2023, an internal email noted that the resident had not received a response and had not met timescales. It noted the resident had requested a stage 2 escalation.
  9. On 21 November 2023, the resident told the landlord it was continuing to ignore her. She said she had called the landlord’s central number multiple times and had requested urgent call backs on 30 October, 14 November, and 21 November 2023. She said she had no contact since 17 October 2023 and was at risk of losing her seventh buyer due to the total lack of information.
  10. On 11 December 2023, the resident asked for urgent help and said she had not had a complaint response. An internal email on 12 December 2023 asked the case manager to respond. The resident chased the landlord again on 18 December 2023.
  11. On 11 January 2024, the case manager finally contacted the resident with an update and apologised for the “severe delay”. This was 69 working days after the landlord opened the complaint. The Ombudsman has found there was a significant failure by the landlord as it did not respond to the resident’s emails and calls and did not provide her with an update on her complaint.
  12. The resident continued to chase the landlord for a complaint response during January and February 2024, and on 2 February 2024, contacted the Ombudsman about the lack of response. The landlord finally issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 February 2024. This was 103 working days after the landlord acknowledged the complaint. The Ombudsman has found this was a serious failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.
  13. In its response, it acknowledged the failure to respond within its timescales and offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience this caused. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was insufficient as it did not recognise the serious failure and the effect this had on the resident.
  14. The resident escalated her complaint on 5 March 2024, as she said the landlord had not set out a clear plan to resolve the leak. On 11 March 2024, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 18 March 2024. This was 10 working days after it was made and was a further failure to follow its complaints policy.
  15. The landlord sent its final response on 16 April 2024, which was 29 working days after the escalation request was made. In its response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident requested an escalation to stage 2 on multiple occasions, but her requests were not actioned. It acknowledged severe delays in issuing the stage 1 and 2 responses, and a lack of communication. It said this was a service failure in complaint handling and offered £300 compensation.
  16. The Ombudsman has found there was a serious failure by the landlord in the way it dealt with the complaint. Initially there was a short delay in acknowledging the complaint, which was follow by a lack of communication and a severe delay in issuing the stage 1 response. There was then a delay in escalating the complaint, and a delayed response was issued after Ombudsman intervention. These delays caused inconvenience and upset for the resident. In its final response, the landlord accepted it had failed in the way it dealt with the complaint and the effect this had on the resident. It offered £300 compensation for these failures. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of leaks.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. A senior director from the landlord must personally apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report, acknowledging its failures, and the way the resident was treated.
  2. The landlord must pay £1,960 compensation to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report. This consists of:
    1. For loss of enjoyment of her home for the period from 25 September 2023 to 31 October 2024, the landlord is to pay the resident £20 a week. This is 58 weeks at £20 per week = £1,160.
    2. The landlord is to consider further payments for loss of enjoyment of the home based on this weekly amount until it has completed the repairs.
    3. For time and trouble, the landlord must pay the resident £500, inclusive of the £350 already offered, if it has not already paid it.
    4. For distress caused, the landlord must pay the resident £300.
  3. The landlord is to put in place a plan to fix the leak affecting the resident’s property. It should advise the resident within 4 weeks what the plan is and should set out when it expects to complete the repairs.
  4. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reoffer the £300 compensation it offered to the resident in its final response for complaint handling failures if it has not already paid it.