Housing Ombudsman makes four severe maladministration findings against major social landlord for "horrible" and "intolerable" conditions

The Housing Ombudsman has made four findings of severe maladministration for social landlord Peabody in four different cases, with residents describing the conditions they were forced to live in as “horrific” and “intolerable”.

The cases include complaint handling, adaptations and overdue repairs, the Ombudsman said.

In Case A, the Ombudsman found severe maladministration for how Peabody handled a complaint about cladding, where a response to the resident’s complaint was only formally issued after 211 working days.

After the resident first raised their dissatisfaction with the landlord, it took nine months for it to be escalated to a stage 1 complaint, and only after 24 repeated emails from the resident, an intervention by the resident’s MP, and a direct email to the landlord’s chief executive office.

When Peabody did issue a formal response, it largely was the same as the informal response it originally gave and did not cover her concerns.

After it was escalated to stage 2, the landlord was unable to inform the resident what it was going to consider, causing further confusion and distress, the Ombudsman found.

The landlord also originally said due to the issues being outside of its control it would not offer compensation, before awarding the full amount under its policy. The resident said poor communication from the landlord continued.

The Ombudsman ordered the landlord’s chief executive to apologise for the failing and to pay an extra £500 in compensation on top of the previously offered amount.

In Case B, the Ombudsman found severe maladministration after Peabody took 14 months to repair a roof and a further 12 months to install insulation, which ended up leaving a family living in cold, damp and mouldy conditions for two years causing significant distress and inconvenience to the residents.

Whilst the landlord offered compensation due to the delay, the Ombudsman decided this was not proportionate to the time taken to fix the roof or the distress caused. There was a six-month delay in obtaining the asbestos reports and then a further six months delay in having the roof replaced.

There was no evidence the landlord took any steps to mitigate the three further leaks that occurred whilst waiting for the roof to be replaced, leading to damp and mould in three rooms and the wet room being unusable for the disabled household member.

The Ombudsman ordered Peabody to pay £3,768 in compensation and for a senior leader to apologise to the resident. It should also provide a report on how it has developed its approach to thoroughly inspecting properties when leaks, damp and mould are identified, with a focus on where there are vulnerabilities recorded.

In Case C, the Ombudsman found severe maladministration after delays and lack of urgency shown when co-ordinating adaptations works led to the required works never being delivered.

It meant the resident had to carry her daughter, who has severe disabilities, up and down stairs due to the property not having been adapted to meet her needs.

This was despite its commitment to monitor the works through to completion, the Ombudsman said. There was a failure to assess the impact of the process on the resident, who described his conditions as “intolerable”, or offer any adjustments – as well as poor communication throughout.

Although there were occasions in which third parties delayed the works, the landlord’s obligation to coordinate this was sometimes neglected, which the Ombudsman described as "sometimes unacceptable". Whilst works were due to be ongoing, the residents would have needed a decant but this was not secured.

"As such, advice in its stage 2 response that works would be underway soon was misleading and shows no attempt to manage expectations," the Ombudsman said.

At the time of determination, the works had still not been completed.

The Ombudsman ordered Peabody to pay £1,750 in compensation, arrange for a decant for the resident and his family, and keep him regularly updated about how works are progressing.

In Case D, the Ombudsman found severe maladministration after Peabody did not investigate its handling of the resident’s repairs earlier, and the subsequent compensation at the time of its final response. This was despite the landlord saying the home was “in a very dangerous state” during one inspection.

Whilst the resident wanted the landlord to look at a complaint that originated eight years before raising it, the landlord said it could only look at cases raised with it within six months. However, it did not mention there was discretion there, the Ombudsman said.

The Ombudsman found that whilst eight years may have been inappropriate, Peabody should have looked back four years previous to the complaint in which a leak was not resolved satisfactorily.

In the following years, there was evidence of many more complaints and inspections but ultimately no formal action to resolve the issue, the Ombudsman said.

"The resident has described their living conditions as 'horrible' and explained that living with damp and mould had destroyed several personal items including food, furniture, and sentimental belongings."

The compensation offered to the resident by the landlord was £700. The Ombudsman therefore ordered the landlord to pay £5,053 in compensation, conduct a review of its repairs record keeping, and provide an apology from a senior member of the organisation.

Richard Blakeway, Housing Ombudsman, said: “The language used by these residents to describe their living conditions is stark.

“I know the senior leadership is committed to improving its services, and these cases provide further evidence of where change is needed. There are a significant number of cases being escalated to the Ombudsman concerning the landlord, which indicates further learning and action may be required."

Blakeway highlighted the repeated examples of a lack of urgency or delays in the cases, giving residents the impression that Peabody has not treated their concerns with the importance it should have done.

“There are vulnerabilities within these reports that should have led to a more urgent response. However, the landlord repeatedly missed these opportunities and warning signs, continuing to prolong the distress for residents," he added.

“Landlords should make sure that if works cannot proceed, or there are issues outside of its control, it needs to be communicating effectively and regularly to seek out what support it can provide residents and what arrangements and adjustments can be made in the meantime.”

In a statement Peabody apologised for the experiences of their residents. "The overall handing of these complaints fell below the standard residents should expect from us. In all these cases, we have apologised and paid compensation. We have completed the adaptations and repairs in these homes where they needed to be done."

The landlord also suggested that it had made "considerable and wide-ranging improvements" to its complaint handling and record keeping as well as the way it does adaptations and repairs.

It has also formed specialist, centralised complaints and record handling teams who make sure that any issues are handled promptly. Peabody also has a separate group that specifically monitors and manages damp and mould cases.

Peabody has additionally reviewed its vulnerabilities policy and is "looking at how we can adapt the way we work to provide the right support when someone may need adjustments or has additional needs"

Harry Rodd