Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Peabody Trust (202318306)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318306

Peabody Trust

10 May 2025

 

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 handling of:
    1. Repairs.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. His tenancy at the property began in 2015. The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat within a converted house.
  2. On 8 February 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that there were gaps around the back door to the property. He said this was letting draughts into the property. The landlord logged a repair for this. On 15 February 2022, the landlord logged a repair for 2 paving slabs outside the front door of the property, which it had damaged when removing scaffolding.
  3. On 14 September 2022, the landlord visited the property and identified that it needed to replace the back door. It instructed a contractor to quote for this on 6 October 2022.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 18 November 2022. He said that it had still not completed repairs to the paving slabs and back door. He also noted that there was an issue with water falling onto the front door when it rained. The resident said due to the draughts from the back door he was having to leave his heating on “day and night”.
  5. On 28 April 2023, the resident emailed the landlord advising there had still been no progress on the repairs. He asked it to pay £800 towards the costs of his increased heating bill. The landlord logged a complaint on 11 May 2023.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 27 June 2023. It said that:
    1. Its contractor had been chasing it for approval of quotes for the new back door for 2 months. It was seeking an update from the relevant team on this.
    2. A subcontractor would contact the resident to arrange an appointment to repair the paving slabs.
    3. It would monitor these repairs and review them upon completion to ensure the resident was satisfied.
    4. Once the repairs were completed it would consider an offer of compensation. However, its policy did not allow it to compensate for utility bills.
  7. We contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 22 August 2023. We asked it to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its process as he was dissatisfied it had still not completed the repairs. We asked it to provide its stage 2 response by 20 September 2023.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 20 September 2023. It said that it:
    1. Had completed the repair for rain water falling over the front door on 3 February 2023. The resident had not reported any further issues of that nature since.
    2. Had not accepted its contractor’s quote for the new back door due to the cost. It had asked a different contractor to provide a quote for this.
    3. Had changed its repairs contractor and raised a new works order for the paving slabs on 26 June 2023. This was still outstanding and it would chase it up.
    4. Apologised for the delays and recognised these were unreasonable. It also acknowledged the impact this had had on the resident including his increased heating costs.
    5. Was offering the resident a total of £1,081 compensation composed of:
      1. £800 for time and trouble.
      2. £181 for heat loss during the winter period.
      3. £100 for the delays in its stage 1 complaint response and in escalating his complaint.

Events since the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

  1. The landlord’s contractor renewed the back door on 2 November 2023. On 14 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the new door still had the same gaps around it. He said the doorframe also needed renewing.
  2. On 14 January 2024, the landlord’s contractor replaced the broken paving slabs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s policy only required it to accept complaints about a matter within 6 months of it arising. However, in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord reasonably used its discretion to examine events dating back to February 2022, when it first logged the relevant repairs. This investigation will mirror that timeframe.
  2. We note that, since the back door was replaced, the resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the doorframe, which he feels also requires replacement. As this matter arose after the complaints procedure subject to this investigation, it will not feature in this report beyond the background section above. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the matter, he may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord about it.

Repairs

  1. The landlord’s repair logs show that it raised a repair for the resident’s back door on 8 February 2022 and for the paving slabs on 15 February 2022. Appointments for both repairs were scheduled for 21 February 2022. It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether these appointments were attended. However, it is evident that the repairs were not resolved on that date.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted it for updates on both repairs on 25 May 2022, 14 June 2022 and 25 July 2022. However, there is no evidence that the landlord provided him with a response or progressed the repairs.
  3. On 14 September 2022, the landlord visited the property and informed the resident that it would replace the back door. The resident contacted it for an update about this on 23 September 2022. However, the landlord failed to raise a repair order to replace the door until 6 October 2022.
  4. According to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, its contractor attended the property on 6 October 2022 to inspect the door. However, there is no evidence it had informed the resident of this visit in advance, and consequently he was not at the property when they attended. There is no evidence the landlord or its contractor attempted to rebook this visit, despite the resident having contacted it when he became aware its contractor had attempted to visit.
  5. It was not until 28 November 2022, after the resident had emailed it on 18 November 2022, that the landlord advised the resident the contractor had rebooked to attend on 7 December 2022.
  6. The resident called the landlord on 8 December 2022 to advise that its contractor had not attended as scheduled. In a later email he said he had waited in all day for it. He said the situation was making him stressed and depressed and he felt the landlord did not care that he was struggling with how cold the property was. The resident claimed he was spending £10 to £15 a day on heating the property due to the draughts from the back door.
  7. In an email of 13 December 2022, the landlord said it would chase its contractor for an update and provide this to the resident. However, this did not happen, and the resident contacted the landlord again on 19 December 2022 and 20 January 2023 chasing the repairs up.
  8. The landlord responded on 24 January 2023. It said that its contractor would book in the outstanding repairs within the next 48 hours. It said it would chase this up daily until it happened. The landlord has provided no evidence that it followed through on this commitment.
  9. However, its stage 1 complaint response indicates that its contractor attended at some point in February 2023 to take measurements for the new door. Correspondence between the resident and the landlord indicates that the contractor then sent the landlord its quote to replace the door at some point in March 2023.
  10. This was 4 months after the works order had originally been raised and the contractor had first attempted to visit. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that it will complete ‘specialist works’ (those requiring a specialist contractor) within 60 calendar days. It had already significantly exceeded this target by the time its contractor attended to quote for the works. The landlord has not provided any explanation for this delay.
  11. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that the issue with water pouring over the front door when it rained had been resolved on 3 February 2023. There is no evidence in the landlord’s records to support this. However, the resident does not appear to have disputed it or raised the matter again since that date. We therefore consider the landlord’s account to be accurate.
  12. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it raised the repair for the water pouring over the front door on 23 November 2022. This appears to have been in response to the resident’s email of 18 November 2022 when he mentioned the issue. We have not seen any evidence the resident raised this issue with the landlord prior to this date.
  13. The landlord’s policy says it will complete non-urgent repairs within 28 calendar days. It significantly exceeded this target for the water issue, even allowing for the Christmas period.
  14. On 28 April 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to say that his back door had still not been replaced. He said the situation was “very, very stressful” and he was having to run his heating “24/7” as the flat was “very cold”. He requested compensation of £800 towards the heating costs. The landlord logged this as a complaint on 11 May 2023.
  15. According to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it spoke to the resident on 22 June 2023 about his complaint. During this call he also raised the matter of the broken paving slabs which had still not been replaced. The landlord’s records show that it logged a new repair for these on 26 June 2023. In its stage 1 response, it said its contractor would contact the resident directly to arrange an appointment.
  16. In its stage 1 response, the landlord failed to provide a meaningful update on the back door. It said only that its contractor’s quote was awaiting approval, and it would chase this up internally. Considering the landlord had raised the complaint over a month prior to its response, it would have been appropriate for it to have chased this up as part of its investigation. This would have enabled it to provide a more satisfactory update within its complaint response.
  17. In response to the resident’s request for compensation for his increased heating costs, the landlord said it was unable to offer this under the terms of its policy. However, the section of the policy it relied upon related to offering compensation for “utility costs, such as water or energy used to carry out a repair”. This was not appropriate in this scenario as the resident was claiming for costs incurred due to the landlord’s failure to carry out the repair in a timely manner.
  18. Despite saying that it would “continue to monitor progress with these repairs” the landlord has not provided any evidence that it did so following its stage 1 response. This led the resident to approach us for assistance with his complaint on 22 August 2023 as the repairs had still not progressed. We then contacted the landlord and asked it to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its process.
  19. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord advised that it had not approved its contractors quote for the back door due to the cost. As a provider of social housing, the landlord has a responsibility to seek value for money and manage its budgets responsibly. However, the stage 2 response was provided approximately 6 months after the landlord had received the quote. This was an unreasonable length of time for it to make this decision and communicate it to the resident.
  20. The landlord also said that it was chasing up the paving slabs repair with its contractor. This repair had now been logged almost 3 months ago and already significantly exceeded the landlord’s 28 calendar day timescale for a non-urgent repair. This evidences its failure to “monitor progress” of the works as its stage 1 response had committed to. Again, the landlord could have sought an update from its contractor once it received the stage 2 complaint. This would have enabled it to provide a meaningful update on the matter in its response.
  21. At stage 2, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £800 for his time and trouble pursuing the repairs. The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to offer up to £600 for “extensive disruption” causing “high impact and high effort to resolve” for the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to exceed this upper limit considering the length of delays, impact on the resident and the effort expended by him in repeatedly contacting it. This amount is also in keeping with our remedies guidance for instances of maladministration causing ‘significant impact’ on a resident.
  22. The landlord also appropriately reversed its stage 1 decision not to compensate the resident for increased heating bills due to the draughts from the back door. It offered him £181 representing £1 per day during the winter period (1 October to 30 April). Whilst such an offer was appropriate, it is our view that £1 per day was not a reasonable reflection of the likely expense the resident incurred.
  23. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will reimburse residents £2 per day for the cost of running a dehumidifier in their property. This would have been an appropriate level to mirror in this case and we make an order reflecting this below. We also note that the back door was not replaced until 2 November 2023, meaning this amount should be applicable from 1 October 2023 until 1 November 2023 whilst the draughts persisted.
  24. The landlord raised a works order to a new contractor on 27 September 2023 – a week after its stage 2 response, to renew the back door. Its contractor renewed the door just over 5 weeks later. This was a reasonable period of time considering the manufacture time of such a door. Therefore, we do not view any further compensation as being necessary for this repair beyond that offered in the landlord’s stage 2 response.
  25. The broken paving slabs, however, were not replaced by the landlord’s contractor until 14 January 2024. This was almost 4 months after its stage 2 complaint response. This was an unreasonable further delay for which the landlord has not provided an explanation.
  26. We have not seen any evidence to suggest the broken slabs represented a hazard or affected the resident entering and exiting the property. Due to this we consider the detriment caused by this delay to be limited. We therefore make a finding of service failure and order the landlord to pay the resident a further £100 compensation. This represents £25 per month for the post stage 2 delays in completing the paving slab repair.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint on 11 May 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days of this, unless it informs the resident in advance that it requires an extension.
  2. The landlord did not provide its stage 1 response until 27 June 2023. This was 32 working days after it logged the complaint. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it discussed an extension to its response with the resident. Even after he contacted it on 24 May 2023 chasing up the complaint.
  3. The resident has told us that, following the stage 1 complaint response, he phoned the landlord several times expressing his continued dissatisfaction. He said the landlord failed to act upon this. This caused the resident to approach us for assistance in escalating his complaint on 22 August 2023.
  4. Whilst we have not seen any evidence of this, in its stage 2 complaint response the landlord did acknowledge delays in escalating the resident’s complaint. This appears to corroborate the resident’s account.
  5. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for its complaint handling. This was made up of £50 for the delay in its stage 1 complaint response and £50 for the delay in escalating his complaint. These amounts are in keeping with its compensation policy which allows it to offer up to £50 for “a failure to follow the complaints policy or procedure with low level impact”. They also reflect our remedies guidance for instances of service failure with minimal impact.
  6. Based upon this, we find that the landlord’s offer of £100 represents reasonable redress for the failings in its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1,386 composed of:
    1. The £800 offered for his time and trouble in its stage 2 complaint response.
    2. The £181 offered for ‘heat loss’ in its stage 2 complaint response.
    3. A further £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its further delays in it completing repairs to the paving slabs.
    4. A further £305 for ‘heat loss’ during the winter period the back door repair was delayed (an extra £1 per day for 1 October 2022 to 30 April 2023 and then £2 per day from 1 October 2023 to 1 November 2023).
  2. The landlord may deduct any amount already paid to the resident following its stage 2 complaint response from the above.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with this order to us.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that, if it has not done so already, the landlord pays the resident the £100 offered for its complaint handling in its stage 2 complaint response. The finding of reasonable redress is contingent upon this.
  2. We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to discuss if he is still dissatisfied with the back door frame and arrange a surveyor’s inspection of it if he is.