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

Peabody Trust (202100517)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100517

Peabody Trust

14 July 2023

 

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. handling of a leak into the resident’s property, and;
    2. response to the resident’s report of damages to his property and belongings following the leak.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord and lives in a ground floor, two-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident was 85 years old at the time of the complaint. The landlord acknowledged it would be reasonable to expect the resident to have some vulnerabilities. However, no specific vulnerabilities had been logged. The resident advised this Service that he cannot write effectively due to trembles in his hand.
  3. The resident reported a leak into his property from the flat above on 12 November 2020, which saturated his floorboards and skirting boards. He requested for it to be assessed as soon as possible. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 12 November and again on 13 November 2020. On both occasions, there was no answer from the resident upon attendance. Following this, the landlord cancelled the job.
  4. The resident contacted this Service, and a complaint was raised on behalf of the resident on 8 April 2021. The complaint outlined the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the leak, specifically about damages to his property and belongings, missed appointments, delays for the leak to be remedied, and that he had been without electricity for three days following the leak.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 6 May 2021. The response stated:
    1. Contractors attended the resident’s property on 12 and 13 November 2020 but were not permitted access on both occasions. A note was left for the resident to contact the landlord, and the job was cancelled.
    2. Contractors attended the property on 26 February 2021 and following this, it decided that a supervisor needed to attend to assess damage caused by the leak. The ceiling was damaged, and wallpaper was coming away from walls. The landlord was unable to contact the resident to book a subsequent appointment.
    3. An appointment was booked with the resident for attendance by the landlord on 13 May 2021.
    4. The landlord apologised that repairs had not been completed in a timely manner and acknowledged that progress had been slow. It advised that once repairs were completed, it would look into compensation in line with its compensation policy.
  6. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 16 November 2021 that outlined it had still not been able to establish contact with the resident despite a number of calls and messages. The landlord noted that whilst the repairs are its responsibility, it required open communication from the resident.
  7. The landlord issued a further stage 2 complaint response on 22 June 2022 following a visit to his property. The landlord offered the resident £500 compensation as a goodwill gesture for damages to the resident’s property. In addition, it offered £150 to account for delays caused by the landlord and inconvenience caused by a further appointment being required after the landlord’s attendance in May 2022. The landlord concluded it was difficult to understand the extent of the damages to the resident’s property caused by the leak, and what was caused by wear and tear. The landlord advised it had no records of the resident being without electricity for three days.
  8. The resident remains dissatisfied about damages to his belongings and property following the leak. He also expressed dissatisfaction at not being compensated for the three days he reported being without electricity. The resident explained he had to call out the fire brigade who switched off his electricity. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident is seeking an offer of £3,000 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, and damage caused to his property and belongings.
  9. Following the landlord agreeing to complete works in the resident’s property, the landlord’s contractors advised they would be unable to complete the works due to the scale and cost and referred to the landlord’s surveying team . The landlord notified the resident that it would require another appointment for the surveying team to attend the property and decide on a new contractor to complete the works. The resident subsequently refused this, and no further actions have been taken.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a leak into the resident’s property

  1. Despite a charity contacting the landlord on 24 February 2021 advising that no one contacted the resident on the day of the leak, the landlord’s records evidence that a contractor attended the property on the day of the report. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it should attend to an emergency repair within two to four hours. Although the landlord has not provided exact timings of the visit, it responded to the reported leak on the day of the report. Following attendance to the property on 12 November 2020, the landlord noted ‘no access upon attendance’. The landlord subsequently attempted another visit on the following day and made phone calls to the resident which were not answered. As the landlord experienced further issues with gaining access on 13 November 2020, it was appropriate for the landlord to leave a card through the letterbox advising a contractor had attended.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement outlines that he must give the landlord reasonable access to his home for the purposes of inspecting the condition of the home or carrying out repairs to the home. The landlord took sufficient action to respond to the resident’s report of the leak by calling at the property on two consecutive days and phoning the resident in an attempt to gain access. As the resident did not allow access, the landlord was unable to take immediate actions to respond to the leak.
  3. The resident explained to this Service that the leak had been caused by an overflowing sink in the above property. With this in mind, the leak is likely to have been a one-off issue, rather than water continuously entering his property.
  4. This Service acknowledges that following the two failed visits, the landlord was unable to keep the job open indefinitely. However, it should have followed up with the resident after the two attempted visits, especially given the resident’s age, and the fact the landlord had logged the leak as a health and safety hazard in the property. The landlord reopened the repair after a charity contacted the landlord on 24 February 2021. A property inspection was completed on 26 February 2021. This was three months after the initial report of the leak. These delays could have been avoided.
  5. Following the landlord’s visit on 26 February 2021, the landlord frequently phoned, wrote letters, and texted the resident in an attempt to assess the condition of the property and complete an asbestos survey (as required before repairs could be completed). The resident did not respond to the landlord’s appointment requests, and so it was unable to assess the damages or carry out repair works. In its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, the landlord explained it required engagement from the resident to progress the matter. It reiterated at stage 2 that there was a need for an asbestos survey before repairs could commence.
  6. The landlord attempted to progress the complaint by arranging a joint visit to assess repairs and complete an asbestos survey at the same time. According to the landlord’s records, the resident either did not allow access to his property, or cancelled booked appointments on 13 May 2021, 27 May 2021, 3 June 2021, and 14 October 2021. In between the failed appointments, the landlord texted and sent letters to the resident to rearrange the property inspection. The landlord eventually visited the property on 18 May 2022.It is noted that the landlord cancelled one appointment on 6 April 2021.Despite this, delays for the joint visit to be completed were predominantly a result of access issues to the property and a lack of engagement from the resident when the landlord attempted to arrange appointments.
  7. The resident requested compensation for being without electricity in his property for three days when the leak initially occurred. However, there are no records suggesting an electricity outage was reported to the landlord prior to the stage 1 complaint on 8 April 2021, which was five months after the leak. The landlord’s repair policy states residents should promptly notify the landlord of any repairs that are the responsibility of the landlord within their property. As the landlord was not aware of the lack of electricity in the resident’s property at the time of the leak, it acted based on the information it had at the time. The landlord was unable to access the property on the day the leak was reported, or the day after, and therefore could not assess the immediate damage to the property. The landlord should however have responded to this aspect of the resident’s complaint prior to stage 2. The landlord’s assertion that it had not been made aware of the resident’s reports of no electricity in his property before stage 2 was incorrect as it constituted part of the stage 1 complaint.
  8. The landlord’s offer of £150 is reasonable to redress the delays caused by the landlord prematurely closing the resident’s case in November 2020, and for an additional appointment being required following attendance in May 2022.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damages to his property and belongings following the leak.

  1. When the landlord assessed the resident’s property, it noted he had a significant number of personal belongings in his property which required removing before repairs could begin. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, residents are responsible for removing and putting back personal belongings after works are completed. The landlord acknowledged the resident may not be able to complete this himself due to his age and made an exception, offering to remove the resident’s belongings for him. It advised that he would need to sign a disclaimer should he agree to this. It was good practice for the landlord to make this exception given the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  2. The landlord advised the resident in its stage 2 response to make a claim on his home contents insurance or claim against its public liability insurance for damage caused to his personal belongings in the property. The resident refused this due to concerns over the time it would take. The landlord’s compensation policy outlines that residents are expected to take out adequate home insurance for their furniture, decoration, and personal possessions to insure against accidental damage. It continues that the landlord will not offer compensation where a claim can be made on home contents insurance. The landlord will, however, consider reimbursement where damages have been caused directly because of the landlord’s actions or oversight. Given the resident explained the leak was caused by an overflowing sink in the flat above, this would not constitute the landlord’s responsibility.
  3. The landlord’s advice for the resident to claim for damaged personal belongings following the leak on his home insurance was appropriate and in accordance with its compensation policy. It managed the resident’s expectations and offered him advice of how he could obtain the outcome he was seeking. As damages to the resident’s personal belongings were not the landlord’s responsibility, the £500 compensation offered by the landlord was a good will gesture rather than to remedy any failings relating to damages to the resident’s belongings.
  4. When assessing the resident’s property, the landlord noted that the property was dry due to the lapse in time since the leak occurred. The landlord was unclear as to whether damages to the property had been caused by the leak or by wear and tear. It was uncertain as to how the leak occurred given the spread of the water damage. Despite this, it identified repairs to the property noting that the majority was decorative work. The landlord agreed to complete the redecoration works and professionally clean the stained carpet which was attributed to wear and tear as a goodwill gesture. It also agreed to renew the kitchen given its age and condition.
  5. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, it is the resident’s responsibility to carry out internal painting/wallpapering and attend to repairs to carpets installed by the resident. Given the landlord was unsure on what damages were caused by the leak, and had uncertainty on the circumstances surrounding the leak, it exceeded its obligations by agreeing to improvement works in the property. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damages to his property and belongings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of a leak into the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damages to his property and belongings following the leak.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to contact the resident again with a view to carry out the works it advised the resident it would complete.
  2. If it has not already paid it, the landlord should reoffer the £150 to redress the delays caused by the landlord prematurely closing the resident’s case in November 2020, and for an additional appointment being required following attendance in May 2022.