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

Peabody Trust (202340829)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340829

Peabody Trust

20 September 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 the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s concerns about her medical assessment.
    2. Handling of reports of ventilation issues at the property.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat situated on the second floor of a building managed by the landlord. The resident lives at the property with her 3 children. The landlord is a housing association and has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

Landlord’s obligations

  1. The landlord’s rehousing policy says that it will arrange for medical applications to be independently assessed where it believes an applicant may fall within its medical priority banding.
  2. The landlord’s repairs responsibilities policy, from its website, says it is responsible for communal ventilation systems and for individual extraction systems. Its website also explains that it aims to deal with emergency issues within 4 hours and 30 days to repair routine issues.
  3. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It says it will acknowledge new complaints within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. A stage 2 response will be provided within 20 working days of an escalation request. The landlord’s complaints policy explains how it can extend its timeframe for a stage 1 and 2 response by a further 10 working days.

Summary of events

  1. In February 2023, the resident asked the landlord to change its medical assessment for her rehousing needs. She told it that she could manage stairs within a property just not 2 flights of external stairs. She explained that not including this in her medical assessment was impacting her ability to apply for a suitable property with the local authority. At that time, the landlord told her it would need another medical assessment and could not change the previous one.
  2. On 7 December 2023 the resident raised her complaint. She told the landlord that despite her contact about rehousing the landlord had “neglected” her family. She told it of her health issues and the vulnerabilities of 2 of her children. She said the property was like “living in a mental asylum” because of the lack of space. She said she had completed new medical forms for the landlord to change her medical assessment letter but it had not done this. She told it how the ventilation had not been working and its staff could not find the problem with it.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 December 2023. It explained how it did not have enough larger homes to offer its residents. It confirmed the resident had the highest medical priority but explained the fastest way to move was a mutual exchange.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 December 2023 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. The landlord acknowledged this on 3 January 2024 and said it would respond within 20 working days. On 31 January 2024, the landlord contacted the resident again and asked for more information about the ventilation aspect of her complaint. On 2 February 2024, the resident explained how the ventilation system was not working and she had raised this numerous times. She said its engineers would leave saying they could not fix it. The resident told the landlord about the impact the lack of ventilation was having on her and that she had multiple health conditions. The landlord thanked her for her response and extended its complaint response timeframe by 10 working days.
  5. On 20 February 2024 the resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint. The landlord responded apologising for its delay and said the complaint handler was away unexpectedly. It provided a revised timeframe of 1 March 2024 and told the resident she could contact this Service if she was unhappy.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 March 2024. It repeated the contents of its stage 1 response about the resident’s priority banding. It said:
    1. It had raised a work order for the ventilation issues and its contractor would assess it with the view of making adjustments, if needed. It apologised for not addressing the issue within its stage 1 response.
    2. It said it was “deeply saddened” to hear of the resident’s situation and of the vulnerabilities within the household. It advised the resident of support available while she was struggling with her mental health and urged her to speak to her GP.
    3. It explained how it had 400 residents waiting at the same banding and how it had a shortage of homes to offer residents. It said a mutual exchange was the quickest way to move. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
    4. It apologised for missing the complaint about ventilation within its stage 1 response and for the delayed stage 2 response. It explained the delayed stage 2 response was due to sickness and offered the resident £300 for its complaint handling failings.
  7. On 17 April 2024 the resident told the landlord that it had not contacted her about the ventilation issue or paid her the compensation amount. In its response, on 30 April 2024, the landlord increased its compensation offer by a further £100 due to its delay.

Assessment and findings

  1. Throughout her complaint the resident has expressed unhappiness with the landlord’s medical assessments of her rehousing needs in relation to a property with stairs. It is clear that this has been a frustrating time for the resident. It is important to explain that it is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to comment on the outcome of a medical assessment and decide whether the medical assessment should be changed.
  2. It is also noted that some of the resident’s concerns are about the local authority’s housing scheme. Paragraph 42j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to look into complaints about the local authority’s housing scheme, its housing allocations, bidding, banding and the housing register. This is because these are processes administered by the local authority and fall within the scope of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
  3. However, as part of this investigation, this Service has considered what the landlord did following the resident’s concerns about her medical assessment.

Response to the resident’s concerns about her medical assessment

  1. In February 2023 the resident asked the landlord to make changes to her medical assessment. She told it how it was impacting her ability to find a suitable property as it recommended a property without stairs. She told the landlord that this was not correct as she often used the stairs for the property when the lift did not work. Following this the landlord acted appropriately in referring the matter to a medical expert. The evidence shows that on 12 May 2023 the medical agency said the resident would need to complete a new medical assessment. The landlord sent medical assessment forms to the resident in May 2023. This was appropriate.
  2. In June and July 2023 the resident told the landlord that she had sent it 3 medical forms completed for herself and her 2 children. In response, also in July 2023, the landlord asked the resident for medical supporting documents. It is unclear whether the resident provided the requested information.
  3. However, the resident repeated the same concerns about her medical assessment in her complaint from December 2023. In her later contact from March 2024 she told the landlord again that she had completed 3 medical forms and asked for an update. The landlord failed to respond to these requests or update the resident on the required steps. This was not appropriate.
  4. While the landlord’s initial actions were reasonable, its failure to respond to the resident’s concerns about her medical assessment between December 2023 and March 2024 was not appropriate. It is important to note that it remains unclear whether the landlord received the requested medical evidence. However, we would expect the landlord to inform the resident if it was still awaiting further information from her and what medical supporting documents she needed to provide. The landlord’s failure to do this would have added to the resident’s frustration and would have had a greater impact on the resident due to her vulnerabilities. The landlord’s failure between December and March 2024 amount to a maladministration.

Handling of reports of ventilation issues at the property

  1. On 1 March 2023 the resident told the landlord how she was suffering with breathing difficulties due to ventilation at the property. There is no evidence to show the landlord followed up on this at that time. This was not appropriate especially as it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  2. The landlord’s repairs log shows it raised a works order to check the ventilation of the property on 27 November 2023. It did this on 4 December 2023, and found the ventilation was not working and that the bathroom tap needed replacing as it was “creating mould”. It is unclear why it took the landlord 9 months to check the ventilation system. This timeframe significantly exceeded its routine repair timeframe and would have adversely affected the vulnerable resident who reported breathing difficulties.
  3. It is noted that the landlord’s contractor found mould around a tap in December 2023 and it appropriately completed work to this at that time. It also found there was no damp and mould throughout the property. The landlord’s handling of the tap repair was appropriate.
  4. On 20 December 2023 the landlord raised a repair for extractor and ceiling fans in the property. However, it cancelled this the following day and noted it was a communal ventilation system and the work should be raised to the block. There is no evidence to show the landlord did any further work to fix the fans at the property or the ventilation system. There is also no evidence to show it provided the vulnerable resident with alternative support. This was not appropriate.
  5. The resident continued to report the ventilation system was not working, however, it took the landlord until its stage 2 response, 12 months after the initial report, to say its contractor would assess the ventilation. This timeframe was not appropriate and there is no evidence to show the landlord has resolved the ventilation issue.
  6. Overall, the landlord’s handing of ventilation issues at the property was not appropriate. It initially took 9 months to check the ventilation at the property and then failed to take any meaningful action after finding it did not work. It then took a further 4 months to say it would assess the ventilation but has failed to do this or offer the vulnerable resident any support or assistance while it resolved the issue. When considering the resident’s vulnerabilities and what she told the landlord, the landlord’s failings here would have adversely affected her. The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident raised her complaint on 7 December 2023 and the landlord appropriately issued a response on 15 December 2023. However, it failed to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint, this was not appropriate.
  2. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 December 2023 and while the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint on 3 January 2024, in light of the holiday period. It failed to meet its 20 working day timeframe. This was not appropriate and it took the landlord until 12 March 2024 to issue its stage 2 response. While the landlord made some attempts to keep the resident updated in February 2024, it failed to meet its revised response timeframes. This was not in line with its policy and was not appropriate.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says a landlord must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for its decision. The landlord missed opportunities, as part of its complaints process, to tell the resident if it needed further information for her medical assessment or if it had concluded this. It also missed opportunities to update the resident on the medical assessment forms she had submitted. This was not appropriate.
  4. However, it is noted that within the landlord’s stage 2 response it appropriately recognised its complaint handling failings, apologised to the resident and offered £300 in compensation for this. The amount of £300 falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance. When considering this along with the circumstances of the complaint, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to its complaint handling failings and the compensation amount satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. response to the resident’s concerns about her medical assessment.
    2. handling of reports of ventilation issues at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a manager to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be in writing and within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £700 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears:
    1. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to concerns about the resident’s medical assessment.
    2. £500 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of ventilation at the property.
  3. The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, to:
    1. Provide the resident with an update on her medical assessment. If it requires further information, it should explain this to the resident detailing what it needs.
    2. Conduct an inspection of the property. This is to include, but not limited to, an inspection of the ventilation system. Within 2 weeks of this inspection, the landlord should provide a copy of its survey to this Service and the resident. It should confirm in writing:
      1. If work is required to the ventilation system and provide a schedule of works, detailing the interim support it will provide to the resident.
      2. If work is required to the fans within the property. It should provide a timeframe for when it will complete this work.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays £300 it previously offered the resident for its complaint handling failings, if it has not paid this already.