Peabody Trust (202345020)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345020

Peabody Trust

25 July 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 concerning:
1. The toilet.
2. The shower.
3. The lack of heating in the property.
4. The internal and external walls.
5. The complaint and level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant at the property which is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives in the property with her husband and daughter. The resident has Crohn’s disease, her husband has angina, and her daughter has asthma and other chronic health conditions.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 January 2024 and outlined the repairs that were needed in the property. This included a boiler leak, the shower not working due to a faulty pump, lack of heating, bricks falling out of the external wall, and the toilet not flushing properly. The resident explained that she had Crohn’s disease which meant she was often bathroom bound. She said she had been constantly complaining, was not sleeping, was in tears, and at her “wits end”. She asked that someone help her as the whole situation was shocking. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email as a formal complaint on 22 January 2024.
On 26 January 2024 in an internal email, the landlord confirmed the following:
1. The toilet was working well, however, the resident stated that it did not flush fully the first time and she had to continually flush it to ensure it had cleared. A request was made for a plumber to look at it.
2. The brickwork under the window was loose and needed attention. It had already been confirmed with the resident that a job was scheduled for that on 14 February 2024.
3. A gas engineer had been booked to look at the radiator valves in the cloakroom and ground floor.
4. The shower pump was noisy, and it should consider moving it to the loft or for the cupboard to be soundproofed. The job was outstanding and needed to be booked.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 March 2024. It stated that a building surveyor attended the property on 21 November 2023 and repairs were raised in December 2023. The landlord said that there was no fault with the pump itself and the previous tenant installed the shower pump so it would not be responsible for changing it. It confirmed that a larger radiator would resolve the issues with the heating and an appointment for that had been booked. It said repairs to the brickwork should commence at the end of March and would take approximately 1 week to complete. It said it would investigate the additional issues the resident was experiencing with her shower. The landlord provided an action plan and offered £500 compensation. £450 was for time, trouble, and inconvenience, and £50 for complaint handling.
The resident responded the same day, she said she was disgusted and upset with the response. She said she had made a complaint at the beginning of November 2023 and most of the issues had not been resolved. The resident said that she was told it would be very unsafe for her family while the works to the walls were undertaken. She also referred to her family’s health conditions. The resident said there was serious heat loss in the property and the house was not insulated properly. She said she always had to keep the heating on which was causing high bills. The resident said that her shower remained broken, and it was the landlord who had originally fitted the pump. She said she had a quote for the pump to be moved which should be included in the compensation offer and she would like an additional £1,000.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 May 2024. It said the stage 1 response was fair and reasonable and several of the issues were sufficiently addressed or resolved. It provided an update on the following:
1. It had attended to fix the radiator, but it said a larger one was needed. It was unable to do this as the wall needed to be strengthened first. It said it was not yet completed due to the complexity and that follow–on works were needed. It said it would keep her updated.
2. It attended to the issues with the shower on 7 March 2024, but the resident refused the work, so the repair was closed.
3. It attended on 10 April 2024 regarding the brickwork, internal wall, and windowsill. However, it was unable to gain access to the property. It said a structural engineer was required and it would keep the resident updated.
In the stage 2 response the landlord accepted that it was responsible for most of the avoidable delays and there was a lack of a joined-up approach. It acknowledged that there were repeat visits and poor communication with the resident. It noted that the household’s vulnerabilities had not been fully highlighted. It outlined steps it had taken to remedy its failings and apologised for the poor service she had received. The landlord offered £1,905.08 in compensation. £805.08 was a 20% rent rebate since the resident had moved in, £800 was for time, trouble, inconvenience, and stress caused, and £300 was for the landlord’s complaint handling and poor communication.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said none of the works had been completed and she disputed that there had been no access on 10 April 2024. She said she wanted all the repairs to be completed and for the house to be safe. She said the walls were at risk of collapsing and that she could not use one of the rooms due to it being so cold. The resident did not feel the compensation was sufficient and she would like further compensation for her time, rent, and further delays in repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has referred to her family’s health and that the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to the distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced as a result of the situation.

The landlord’s obligations

The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property. It also confirms it is responsible for the repair of any heating, water heating, or sanitation installations it provides.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend emergencies within 4 hours and make them safe within 24 hours. It states that for routine appointments it will offer the next available appointment, with the aim to complete within 10 working days. The policy states that it aims to complete the repairs within 1 visit.
Social landlords are expected to provide housing to residents which meet the definition of a decent home. The standard of a decent home from 2006, is that:
1. It is in a reasonable state of repair.
2. It has reasonably modern facilities and services.
3. It provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
4. It meets the current statutory minimum for housing. Dwellings which do not are those containing one or more hazards assessed as serious (Category 1) under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
The HHSRS sets the minimum standard for housing safety. It lists 29 common hazards, the impacts these hazards can have, and the possible causes. There is advice for landlords on how to categorise the hazards as category 1 (requiring urgent repair) or category 2 (repair if needed). Relevant to this complaint, it provides advice on excess cold, vulnerability to hazards, and structural failure.
The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a 2 stage complaints procedure in which it will respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord’s compensation policy provides guidance for compensating for time, trouble and inconvenience and suggests a payment of up to £600 for extensive disruption. It suggests a maximum of £250 if there is a severe failing in its handling of the complaint. The policy also provides guidance on calculating the compensation for loss and enjoyment of a room and where partial loss may be applicable too.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the toilet

The landlord’s records show the resident first reported the toilet flush being broken on 17 October 2023. The landlord attended on 18 October 2023 and the repair notes show that it “stripped down the toilet cistern, replaced flush cone washer, ball valve, syphon, and handle”, it confirmed that the toilet was left in good working order. The landlord’s initial response to the broken flush was appropriate. It had attended within its repair timescales and taken actions which indicated that the toilet was left repaired and functioned correctly.
There was a further report of the toilet not emptying on 30 October 2023. The records show that the landlord attended on 6 November 2023 and “fitted a plinth and replaced the flush cone, pipe and pan connector”. While the landlord’s actions were reasonable, the landlord should have attended sooner given the potential health and safety risks.
The next report of the toilet was in the resident’s formal complaint dated 12 January 2024. She stated that the toilet did not flush properly, that she had Crohn’s disease, and was bathroom–bound. In an internal email dated 26 January 2024, the landlord confirmed that the toilet was checked in a previous inspection and was working well. It acknowledged that the resident disputed this, and it requested that a plumber attend and look at it. It is unclear when the previous inspection had taken place, however, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange a plumber to attend as the issue was not resolved.
The landlord’s repair records show a job was raised on 30 January 2024 for the flushing to be checked. It was raised again on 1 February 2024 and 22 February 2024. There is no evidence to suggest that the jobs were attended to, and the landlord did not mention the toilet in its stage 1 response, which would likely have been frustrating for the resident. It is noted that the landlord attended the property on 7 March 2024 to repair the toilet and the resident refused the work.
It is important to note that the repair on 7 March 2024 could not be carried out due to the resident refusing the work. Although, prior to that the landlord did not attend to the repair for almost 2 months following the resident’s report. There was another toilet in the property, however, the landlord was responsible for ensuring all toilets were in proper working order and to complete the repair within a reasonable timescale. As such, the delays were not appropriate.
The Ombudsman recognises that some residents’ circumstances, such as health conditions or vulnerabilities, can also mean they are more affected by a landlord’s actions or inactions than others. The resident had explained the impact in relation to her vulnerabilities. In this case, the resident’s health issues and having to chase the landlord were likely aggravating factors in the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused by the landlord’s failings. The landlord’s delayed action and no reference to the toilet in the stage 1 response suggest that it did not fully understand the extent of its failings.
While the landlord went some way to acknowledge its failings in its stage 2 response, it did not go far enough, and the repair remains outstanding. As such, the Ombudsman has found service failure. An order will be made for the landlord to inspect the toilet and complete the necessary repairs to ensure a long-term solution is provided. If the landlord does not feel any further repairs are required, then it should write to the resident and explain why.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the shower

It is evident from the repair records that the resident had reported multiple issues with the shower since October 2023. The landlord attended the property on 23 November 2023 following further reports of no water from the shower. It stated that the shower pump was working intermittently and suggested the gate valves were causing the lack of water supply. It recommended fitting new valves and said it would need to “bung” the cold water storage tank in the loft. On 15 December 2023 the landlord attended again and said the pump was working. The resident complained that it was noisy, and she was advised that they were all like that.
Following the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord raised a repair for the noisy water pump. It suggested it be moved out of the daughter’s bedroom or it could soundproof the cupboard which it was in. The landlord attended on 2 February 2024, and it confirmed there was no fault with the pump and that it could not be relocated in the loft due to the way the pipework runs. It acknowledged that it was disturbing the daughter’s sleep and said the only option was that the pump be removed which would result in the resident having no shower. It suspected that the previous resident fitted the pump. The landlord reiterated this to the resident in the stage 1 response and said it was not its responsibility to change the pump.
While it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its contractors and their expertise in relation to moving the pump, its response regarding the pump being installed by the previous resident was not reasonable. It was then unclear who was responsible for any repairs to the pump. The Ombudsman has not seen any records which show that the pump was not installed by the landlord or that the resident was informed of this at the start of her tenancy. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that the advice regarding the pump provided in its stage 1 response sufficiently addressed the issue at the time. As the resident had disputed the information provided, the landlord should have responded to her, and it was a failing that it did not do so.
In its stage 1 response the landlord noted that the resident was experiencing issues with the shower turning on and off and that it would raise a repair. The landlord attended the property on 7 March 2024 to repair the shower and the resident refused the works.
The resident should have provided access for the landlord to carry out repairs and not doing so would have contributed to the delays. However, the landlord’s actions in relation to the shower repair until its visit on 7 March 2024 were confusing and disorganised. As with the toilet repair, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its contractors for managing the repairs, but only up to a point where multiple reports of reoccurring issues were raised. It should have engaged with its contractors and the resident to resolve the issues that were repeatedly being reported. There is no evidence that the landlord took such a resolution-oriented approach or acted in line with its repairs policy.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its lack of joined–up approach and poor oversight of the repairs and contractors. While it was positive that the landlord recognised this and outlined steps it would take to put this right, it did not recognise all its failings. The issue remains unresolved, and its response likely caused damage to the landlord tenant relationship.
The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the shower. An order will be made for the landlord to repair any fault with the shower and pump, in line with its repair obligations. While the landlord has confirmed that the pump cannot be moved, the landlord should confirm its position on whether the cupboard which the pump is in could be soundproofed, to assist with the level of noise.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the lack of heating in the property

It is not disputed that the resident experienced intermittent heating in the property since moving in. The landlord’s repair log shows a number of issues raised about the boiler and radiators in the property. On 17 November 2023 the resident reported no heating from the boiler. The landlord’s notes stated that the living room radiator lock shield needed replacing due to no heat going through. The repair records show that the system was balanced on 21 November 2023 and in good working order.
Due to the time of year this was reported, the landlord should have responded to the issue of no heating as an emergency, and it was not appropriate that the resident was left for 4 days with no heating in the property. The landlord’s records show it was aware of vulnerabilities in the property, specifically, the resident’s daughter’s asthma. If the landlord could not restore the heating the same day, it should have considered what interim measures it could take such as temporary heaters, to ensure the property was sufficiently heated. It was a failing that it did not do so.
In her formal complaint, the resident reported that the boiler was leaking again. She said the radiators took time to warm up and the heating had to be on constantly due to the loss of heat in the property. She also referred to damp and mould in the property. The landlord raised the repairs on the same day. The landlord attended on 29 January 2024 and confirmed that 2 larger radiators were required. It is unclear why there was such a delay in responding to the resident’s reports made on 12 January 2024, and it was not appropriate that the landlord did not carry out any checks to ensure the property was warm enough in that time.
In an internal email dated 26 February 2024, the landlord stated that the resident said the back bedroom was extremely cold and she had to sleep downstairs. It said there were discussions about installing a larger radiator, but it was refused. It confirmed all the windows seemed fine, apart from mould in the front bedroom window which it needed to inspect. It said it confirmed to the resident that it would conduct a heat loss survey. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider a heat loss survey considering the circumstances and the vulnerabilities in the household. It is disappointing that since then, no further action has been taken, and the survey does not appear to have been conducted.
In her stage 2 escalation the resident raised that there was serious heat loss in the property. She attributed this to the issues with the walls and the house not being insulated properly. She said a surveyor attended to look at the insulation, but they did not do much. The landlord’s internal emails show that it queried whether any insulation works would be carried out and that it would arrange for a surveyor to fully investigate the insulation. There were no further records of the landlord investigating the insulation. The lack of action taken is a further failing. The issues with the walls and brickworks will be addressed later in the report.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that it could not fix the new radiator as the wall needed to be strengthened first. The landlord said it would update the resident within the next few days regarding when it could be completed. The repair remains outstanding.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the lack of heating in the property was poor. While the landlord attended the property on several occasions, most of the issues remain outstanding with no indication of when they will be resolved. It is acknowledged that the larger radiator could not be installed without the repair to the walls, however, the damp and mould, insulation, and heat loss survey remain unaddressed. In line with the Decent Homes Standard 2006, the landlord had a responsibility to ensure the resident’s home was warm enough, especially with the vulnerabilities raised, and there is no evidence that it did.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the poor service the resident received. It outlined changes it had made to its repairs service to ensure repairs were actioned quicker and it offered compensation. While this is positive and shows some learning, it is concerning that the resident remains in the same situation. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the lack of heating in the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the internal and external walls

In investigating this complaint, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to conduct an independent technical assessment of the repair issues raised or determine the condition of the property. It is our role to assess the response of the landlord when put on notice of such repairs, and how it acted on the evidence it was provided with.
The landlord’s repair records dated 16 October 2023 show the resident reported that “she has a brick hanging out of the back door”. The resident made a further report on 2 November 2023 that the brickwork in front of the living room wall was coming away. An appointment was initially booked for the landlord to attend on 16 November 2023, however, the resident asked to rearrange. On 29 November 2023, the landlord attended and raised a repair to “re-bed brickwork to the door [sic] revil”. While the landlord’s initial response for the brickwork at the back door was reasonable, it was unclear what action would be taken regarding the living room wall. It is also unclear whether anyone attended to repair the brickwork to the door.
On 25 January 2024 the landlord confirmed that in a previous inspection, it noted the brickwork under the window was loose and needed attention. In an internal email dated 26 February 2024, the landlord requested an update regarding the repairs to the brickwork. It said the internal wall in the living room under the windowsill had a lot of movement. It said every time the door was shut the whole wall moved, and there were concerns that the wall would deteriorate and start to crumble. It said urgent action was needed. The landlord’s contractor later confirmed that it could start to build the stud wall that same week but then it would need to wait until the end of April/beginning of May to start the works again. It was confirmed that this was due to the weather.
The resident stated that she did not want the work to start and then be left without a living room until the end of April/May. The landlord agreed to postpone the works for the stud wall until the brickwork could start. It said the stud wall was for the resident’s peace of mind but there would be no issues with health and safety if it was postponed. The works could not commence due to the weather and while the resident was upset by this, the landlord confirmed there were no issues with health and safety. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its contractors and as such the landlord’s response was reasonable.
In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed that the works would commence at the end of March and would take 1 week to complete. In her stage 2 escalation the resident raised her concerns with the repair and stability of the living room. She felt the property would not be safe while the construction works were carried out. She referred to her own and her family’s health conditions and that she could not be in the property while the work was carried out. The landlord confirmed that it would not consider a decant as the works were not extensive. It said the resident could stay with friends and family, but she refused.
It is unclear why the date for the works had changed to the end of March, however, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was not appropriate. The landlord was aware of the household vulnerabilities, and it could have carried out a risk assessment to inform its decision as to whether the resident’s request for a decant was reasonable. There was no evidence that it did and therefore its response appeared unsympathetic.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it was unable to gain access to the property on 10 April 2024. The resident disputed this. The landlord identified that a structural engineer needed to visit and due to staff sickness it said it would update the resident in a few days. It said it would also provide an update on the wall which needed to be strengthened to fit the radiator. Given the concerns raised about the property, it was appropriate to arrange for a structural engineer. It is not clear why this was not recognised sooner, and especially before the works had been agreed and communicated to the resident. Its approach was disorganised and did not manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord has provided an undated invoice to the Ombudsman related to the work required at the property. The invoice stated that “all the brickwork above the door had sunk causing cracking as the lintel is either not the correct specification or has been installed without the correct amount of bearing on either side”. It said the brickwork was moving and was not tied into the property structure. It stated that the lintel needed to be removed and replaced in line with building regulations. The quote said it would need to build a structural stud wall and structural supports so the work could be carried out.
As already noted in this report, in its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged its failings in relation to the repairs and that the resident’s vulnerabilities had not been highlighted. It also offered compensation to the resident which will be reviewed in the next section. The Ombudsman considers that the number of failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the internal and external walls amount to maladministration. The situation remains unchanged, and it is concerning that the landlord has not fully considered the risks or its responsibilities in line with the HHSRS. An order will be made to address this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the associated complaint and the level of compensation offered

The landlord took 37 working days to respond to the resident at stage 1 and 42 working days to respond at stage 2. The delays were not acceptable, nor were they in line with the landlord’s complaint policy. The landlord addressed this in its stage 2 response and outlined what action it had taken to improve its service. It awarded a total of £300 for the delays and poor communication. The Ombudsman finds the amount awarded was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s policy.
The report has already acknowledged some of the failings in the landlord’s complaint responses. This included a lack of reference to the toilet, an inappropriate response regarding the shower pump, and a lack of follow–on actions in relation to the repairs. The stage 2 response was an opportunity for the landlord to put right its failures and resolve the issues for the resident. While the landlord referenced positive changes it was making to its service and offered compensation, all the issues remain unresolved, which is a failing.
The resident stated that she first made a complaint in November 2023. From the information provided it is evident that the resident raised several issues in the property which were raised as repairs in November 2023. The Ombudsman has not had sight of the original communication from the resident and therefore it is unclear whether the landlord should have treated it as a complaint. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have clarified this in its complaint response.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £1,905.08 compensation which was broken down as follows:
1. £805.08 which was a 20% rent rebate for 30 weeks for the loss and enjoyment of the property.
2. £800 for time, trouble, inconvenience, stress, and delays. This took into account the lack of understanding of the vulnerable household and medical conditions and the general repairs handling.
3. £300 for complaint handling delays and poor communication.
The landlord stated that it would be able to consider further redress on the completion of works and as appropriate. As stated, the £300 for poor communication and delays with the complaint was reasonable. The Ombudsman also finds the £800 offered for the time, trouble, inconvenience, stress, and delays was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s policy.
As the works are yet to be completed, it does not seem reasonable to limit the loss of use and enjoyment to just 30 weeks. The landlord should pay for an additional 12 weeks from its stage 2 response up to the date of this report which amounts to approximately £322. The Ombudsman also finds it appropriate to award £200 for each complaint which amounted to maladministration. This is to account for the further distress and inconvenience likely caused by the issues remaining unresolved, totalling £400. This is calculated in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the landlord has acknowledged some failings, but they were not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the toilet.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the shower.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the lack of heating in the property.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the internal and external walls.
5. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

A senior member of the landlord staff should apologise to the resident for the additional failings identified in this case.
The landlord must pay a total of £2,627.08 to the resident. This includes the compensation of £1,905.08 already offered.
The landlord must carry out the following actions in the property, if there is any reason why they cannot be carried out, the landlord must write to the resident and explain why:
1. Repairs to the toilet.
2. Repairs to the shower.
3. Heat loss survey and provide an action plan for any associated repairs.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this report.
If it has not already done so, the landlord must arrange for a structural engineer to inspect the property. Once completed, the landlord must inform the resident of its findings and provide an action plan for carrying out any repairs. The action plan should include an estimated timeframe for any works to be completed. The landlord must also consider whether a decant is necessary for the duration of the works, considering the household vulnerabilities.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should confirm whether it will soundproof the cupboard which the shower pump is in, to assist with the level of noise.