Peabody Trust (202344678)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344678

Peabody Trust

29 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be considered for an increased transfer priority banding on medical grounds.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a bathroom extractor fan to be repositioned.

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom ground floor flat and holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. She informed the landlord that she had vulnerabilities including curvatures of the spine, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, hypothyroidism, and type 1 diabetes.
The resident raised concerns about her property being unsuitable due to medical reasons on 25 April 2022 and requested to be transferred. She informed the landlord that she found it difficult to leave her flat due to it being on top of a steep hill. She raised similar concerns again in November 2022.
The resident did not make further contacts to the landlord between December 2022 until July 2023, when Age UK contacted the landlord and requested for the resident’s transfer banding to be assessed due to her being largely housebound.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 3 November 2023 due to the lack of contact from the landlord regarding her request to be moved.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 20 November 2023. It identified that there were delays in the landlord contacting the resident about her rehousing requests. It offered her £100 compensation for the time and trouble incurred.
Between December 2023 until March 2024, the resident provided the landlord with supporting medical information for it to assess her housing banding. The landlord received an MP’s enquiry about the resident’s living conditions, and the MP asked for her to be considered for alternative accommodation.
The Ombudsman raised a new stage 1 complaint on behalf of the resident on 6 March 2024. The resident reported she was housebound in her current property and wanted to be awarded a higher priority banding for rehousing. She also complained that an extractor fan in her wet room needed to be relocated as it blew cold air onto her back and affected her health conditions.
On 8 March 2024, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. The resident’s recent medical assessment had been rejected and she had been informed of the outcome on 29 February 2024. The letter contained information on how to appeal the decision.
2. The landlord had not received an appeal request from the resident.
3. If she wanted to appeal, the resident should provide further medical information from professionals outlining why her current home did not meet her needs.
4. It had forwarded her request for the bathroom fan to be repositioned to the relevant department.
The Ombudsman escalated the complaint on behalf of the resident on 3 June 2024 and attached a letter which the resident had sent to the Ombudsman. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s medical outcome and felt that her current property remained unsuitable for her needs. She was also unhappy that the fan had not been repositioned.
On 25 June 2024, the landlord issued a stage 2 final complaint response. In summary it said:
1. The resident sent some information to the Ombudsman about the medical advisor’s response, but this had not been provided to the landlord.
2. Given the resident’s reported dissatisfaction it extended her deadline to appeal the medical assessor’s outcome by 4 weeks.
3. The resident could log an appeal. It provided her information on how to do this, along with other housing options.
4. If the resident’s medical conditions worsened in the future, she could ask for her banding to be assessed again. She would need to provide supporting medical evidence of how her condition changed.
5. It identified a service failing for not arranging an appointment to relocate the bathroom fan sooner. It awarded a total of £300 compensation for these delays, accounting for the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 3 July 2024 and provided further information during a phone call on 2 October 2024. She remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s poor communication during her requests for her transfer banding to be reviewed, and with the landlord’s failure to act following her reports of the property being unsuitable. In relation to the fan repair, she remains unhappy with the length of time it took the landlord to reposition it. To resolve the complaint, she is seeking the landlord to review its processes to ensure similar matters do not recur. Further, she wants the landlord to improve its communication.
The resident informed the Ombudsman that she had a mutual exchange application approved and was due to move in October 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident informed the Ombudsman that her health conditions have been worsened by the bathroom fan being directed at her back. This investigation is unable to determine a causal link between the landlord’s handling of a repair and the landlord’s actions. Often when there is a dispute over whether a health issue has been caused or made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of a report from an independent medical expert. This will give an expert opinion of the cause or deterioration of a condition. This question may be better for the courts to decide, where an expert can be cross examined during a live hearing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure.
The resident raised initial concerns in April 2022 about a fan being directed at her back when she used the bathroom. However, following this, she did not re-report the matter to the landlord until December 2023. In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 12 months of the matters arising. As the resident raised a complaint on 8 March 2023, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports from December 2023 onwards. The assessment will not consider the report in April 2022 as this did not occur within 12 months of the complaint.

Transfer priority banding

The landlord’s rehousing policy outlines that the landlord will arrange for medical applications to be independently assessed where it believes that the applicant may fall within its health and disability band. It continues that it will award health and disability priority to an applicant whose household needs to move, or is significantly less likely to be caused permanent damage or disability if they do move. This will include any household members originally housed.
In accordance with the landlord’s banding system, residents who are tenants of the landlord with no priority are awarded band D. The banding for health and disability is band B1.
The resident’s initial request to be moved on medical grounds was reported to the landlord in April 2022. She explained that she was finding it “impossible” to get anywhere due to living on top of a steep hill which caused her extreme pain due to her medical conditions. She added that she could not leave the property unless her adult child collected her by car. In response to these concerns, the landlord approved a transfer application for the resident and placed her in band D. It added that, if she needed to move on medical grounds, she should contact the medical rehousing team to request an assessment form. Given the resident’s concerns raised, it was appropriate for the landlord to activate a rehousing application for her. It would have been prudent for the landlord to refer the resident’s email to the medical rehousing team itself as she had raised health concerns.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident did not make further contact with the landlord for the subsequent 6 months. The landlord would not have been expected to take action during this time as the resident had not contacted the medical rehousing team.
The resident reiterated that she wanted to move on medical grounds in November 2022 and added that she did not have a computer or understand how the bidding system worked. The landlord recorded that it would call her back and added her to the auto-bid system. However, it failed to return the telephone call. The landlord’s rehousing policy does not give a timeframe in which it commits to respond to a resident’s request to move on medical grounds. Nonetheless, the landlord should have responded to her and outlined the process for her medical information to be reviewed. The landlord’s poor communication is likely to have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
There was a further period of no contact for the following 7 months. It was unreasonable that during this time the landlord still did not respond to the resident’s concerns.
The resident made further enquiries about a review of her banding in July 2023. As part of this, she reported that she was in the wrong band and said that she had evidence of a disability to assist with her claim. The resident had not received a substantial response from the landlord for a prolonged period, and the resident’s support worker chased up the landlord twice in September 2023. They detailed the resident’s medical conditions and asked for her to be moved as soon as possible due to the unsuitability of her accommodation.
The landlord did not advise the resident that she could complete a medical assessment form until 6 November 2023. It is unclear why this was not provided sooner. The landlord internally noted that the case had been open for a while and the resident, her GP, and support worker had all contacted it to attempt to progress the matter. The lack of action and communication from the landlord in response to the resident’s repeated concerns was unacceptable. Meanwhile, the resident logged a complaint and said that she was housebound and found the lack of response “extremely distressing”. It is concerning that the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord considered the potential risks which the resident and representatives raised. It should have contacted the resident to satisfy itself that there were no safeguarding concerns.
Records show that the resident submitted her medical assessment form and supporting GP letters to the landlord on 13 December 2023. She outlined the reasons she felt she should be moved. It took the landlord until 6 February 2024 to process the form and send the information to its independent medical assessor. The further almost 2-month delay was significant and unreasonable. Although the landlord explained that it was going through a restructure at the time, there was an ongoing lack of accountability, and this did not justify the extent of the landlord’s poor communication.
The medical adviser concluded that, “the evidence supplied does not provide compelling indications for a change of accommodation on medical grounds. I can’t find anything specifically amiss with the current housing”. It continued that the threshold for medical priority had not been met. It is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to assess the merits of this outcome based on the medical evidence. However, the reasons supplied were in line with the landlord’s transfer policy. It was appropriate that the landlord sent a letter to the resident explaining the medical assessor’s outcome and outlining the appeal process. It informed the resident of alternative rehousing schemes it offered.
In accordance with the landlord’s transfer policy, an appeal for a banding outcome should be made directly to the landlord within 4 weeks of a decision being made. Records show that the resident did not log an appeal with the landlord. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response letter, it allowed the resident a 4–week extension given the concerns she had raised to the Ombudsman about the medical outcome. The landlord re-iterated how an appeal could be made. Additionally, it set the resident’s expectations over the shortage of accommodation. These were all appropriate steps. As the resident did not log an appeal at any point, the resident’s banding remained as band D in accordance with the landlord’s transfer policy.
While the landlord’s actions following receipt of the medical assessor’s outcome were largely appropriate, there were repeated communication failings and delays for the landlord to address the resident’s request for her banding to be reviewed between November 2022 until February 2024. Additionally, the landlord did not appropriately respond to the resident’s concerns about her living arrangements.
The landlord failed to put things right or recognise the extent of its failings in its complaint responses, contrary to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to do so. This would have caused detriment to the resident. Although the landlord offered £100 compensation in its initial stage 1 complaint response on 20 November 2023, this was not proportionate to the poor service which the resident experienced up to this point. Further, following this, the landlord failed to offer any compensation for this within its subsequent stage 1 and 2 responses in 2024, despite an ongoing lack of communication and failure to appropriately respond to the resident’s rehousing and banding concerns. As such, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be considered for an increased transfer priority banding on medical grounds.
To put things right, the landlord is ordered to apologise to and compensate the resident with an additional £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her from its failings over a 15–month period to assess the resident’s banding on medical grounds. Additionally, it should compensate her with a further £150 to the resident for its poor communication with her over a prolonged period. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommendation of compensation in this range for failures by the landlord which adversely affected the resident. The landlord is also ordered to follow our dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes by reviewing its process for when a resident requests a banding assessment in light of this case to improve its service and communication.

Extractor fan

The landlord’s repairs policy outlines that tenants should notify the landlord of any repair that is its responsibility and agree a timeslot so the repair can be carried out.
The landlord offers emergency repairs where matters need a rapid response to safeguard the wellbeing of the resident, the structural stability and integrity of the property, or the health and safety of people using the affected area. It aims to attend to such repairs within 4 hours. It will classify a repair as an emergency where there is a high risk or vulnerability. It commits to attend to these repairs within 2 hours.
The resident included in her medical self-assessment form that the extractor fan in her bathroom was directed at her back, which affected her medical conditions. This was submitted to the landlord in December 2023. However, the Ombudsman has not seen records to confirm that this was raised to the landlord as a repair. Although the resident said that she had previously raised the issue to the landlord, and that it was unable to take any action, there are no records to substantiate this.
Records show that the landlord was informed about the bathroom fan affecting the resident’s health through contact from the Ombudsman on 6 March 2024. The landlord was informed that the location of the fan in the wet room blew cold air onto her, which was affecting her health conditions. On the same day, the landlord recorded that the matter had been referred to a team who would contact the resident in relation to moving the bathroom fan. This was reasonable. However, the landlord did not categorise the repair and there were no clear target timeframes for the repair to be completed by.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response that the repair had been passed to the relevant department. However, we have not seen evidence to corroborate that a referral for the repair was made at this time.
The landlord took no further action for 3 months until it telephoned the resident in June 2024. The landlord asked the resident for further information about the repair and the impact on her and agreed to arrange for a contractor to attend. It was unreasonable that the landlord took no action having previously advised the resident that the matter had been referred to the relevant department in its stage 1 response. Further, the landlord requested information which it had already been provided with. This is likely to have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
Records show that an appointment was eventually raised for the fan to be repositioned on 25 June 2024, the same day the landlord issued its stage 2 response. No repairs were raised prior to this despite the landlord acknowledging the need for attendance 3 months prior. This delay was unsatisfactory and exceeded all timescales as per its policy.
The landlord identified in its final response that its service fell short as it should have arranged the repair appointment sooner as part of the stage 1 complaint. It acknowledged that the resident reported she was vulnerable and that the fan positioning had affected her health. As such, it awarded £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and a further £100 for the repair not being actioned as per the landlord’s commitment at stage 1. It was positive that the landlord identified these failings, and the compensation is considered proportionate for the delay up to the final response.
In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord classifies repairs as an emergency where there is a high risk or vulnerability. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that the resident was vulnerable, and the fan reportedly affected her health. However, following stage 2 it failed to raise an emergency repair to attend to the fan despite the lengthy delays the resident had already experienced. The landlord marked the job as complete on 18 July 2024 and records show that the extractor fan was repositioned on this date. This was over 3 weeks after the landlord’s final response.
Although the delay to action the repair post-final response was not substantial, the landlord failed to adhere to its policy and did not appropriately prioritise the repair, despite acknowledging the impact on the resident and her vulnerabilities. To account for these failings beyond the final response, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident with an additional £50 to fully put things right. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards from this amount to recognise delays in getting matters resolved.
Overall, although the resident experienced long delays for the repair to be completed, it was appropriate that the landlord identified these failings in its stage 2 complaint response. The remedy offered was proportionate to reflect the failings up until this point. However, the resident experienced further delays following the landlord’s final response due to it not prioritising the repair. The Ombudsman has therefore identified service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a bathroom extractor fan to be repositioned. It is ordered to learn from the outcome of this by reviewing this case to identify why the repair was repeatedly not logged or categorised to prevent a reoccurrence.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be considered for an increased transfer priority banding on medical grounds.
2. Service failure regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a bathroom extractor fan to be repositioned.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the further failures identified by this investigation, take responsibility for these, and acknowledge their impact on her.
2. Compensate the resident with a total of £800 (inclusive of any below compensation which may have already been paid through the landlord’s complaints process). This is comprised of:
  1. £250 to account for the landlord’s poor communication with the resident in relation to her requests to be considered for a priority banding for a transfer. This amount is inclusive of the £100 offered by the landlord in its stage 1 response on 20 November 2023.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for her banding to be assessed on medical grounds.
  3. £250 to account for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays to attend to and reposition the extractor fan in her bathroom. This amount is inclusive of the £200 already offered to the resident in the stage 2 response.
  4. £100 as already offered by the landlord in its stage 2 response to account for the landlord not repositioning the fan as per its commitment at stage 1.
3. Review its process for when a resident requests for their banding to be assessed. As part of this, it should review this case and identify why its service and communication repeatedly fell short. It should implement a robust process so that all medical and banding requests are appropriately handled by staff and responded to within clearly defined timescales. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with the outcome of its review within 4 weeks from the date of this report.
4. Review this case to identify why the repair was repeatedly not logged or categorised in line with its repairs policy. It should share its findings with relevant staff to prevent reoccurrence of the failings experienced in this case.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks from the date of this report.