Peabody Trust (202426108)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426108

Peabody Trust

30 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
2. The resident’s reports of issues with the boiler and electrical sockets.
3. The resident’s reports of damage to personal belongings.
4. The associated complaints.

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom flat and the resident has an assured tenancy which began on 21 April 2003. The landlord has advised us that 2 of the resident’s children have Autism. The resident has advised us that one of her children has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and one of her children has Diabetes.
The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord on 24 February 2022. She said the issue had returned despite the landlord having carried out previous works. On 7 March 2022, the landlord referred the matter to a specialist contractor and requested an inspection. The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 March 2022 to confirm it had approved the works recommended by the specialist contractor and the contractor would contact the resident to arrange remedial works.
The resident reported a roof leak to the landlord on 22 November 2022, which she said was affecting the side of the building and causing damp and mould in her daughter’s bedroom. The landlord’s Surveyor inspected the property on 1 February 2023 and produced a scope of internal and external works required to the property, including repairs to the brickwork, pointing, guttering and roof. The internal work included mould treatment, replacing the bathroom ceiling and thermally boarding some of the walls. The Surveyor noted that the resident would need to be temporarily rehoused to enable the contractor to carry out the work. After arranging for scaffolding to be erected, the landlord carried out repairs to the roof and renewed some of the roof flashing on 25 May 2023.
In August and September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report a leak from the loft area, which she said was affecting the bathroom ceiling. She then contacted the landlord in October 2023 to report that the external pointing and the internal remedial works scoped by the landlord in February 2023 had not been started.
On 17 January 2024, the resident made a stage 1 complaint stating that she had moved into the property in 2003 and at that time the carpets were full of insects and the property was damp. She said she had redecorated several times using anti-mould paint and had purchased dehumidifiers, which added to her electricity costs. She said that water was coming through her bedroom ceiling from the chimney stack, despite a new roof being fitted in May 2023 and said several of her belongings had been damaged by damp and mould.
In January 2024, the landlord renewed the kitchen and carried out other works to the property, such as applying thermal boarding to some of the walls. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 16 February 2024 in which it stated the following:
1. The resident had been experiencing damp and mould for some time, however, it was unable to investigate the issues dating back to the start of her tenancy.
2. Although repairs had now been completed, the resident had reported there were still some outstanding repairs.
3. It could not compensate the resident for damaged personal belongings but advised the resident that she could submit a claim to the landlord’s liability insurer if she did not have contents insurance. It provided an email address for its Insurance Team.
4. The landlord listed the outstanding repairs and confirmed they had been passed to contractors. The works included refixing plug sockets, work to the chimney stack and repairs to the kitchen tap and the bathroom window.
5. The landlord offered compensation of £550, which was comprised of £500 for distress, time, trouble and inconvenience and £50 for complaint handling.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 February 2024 and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said she was rejecting the landlord’s offer of compensation as she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. She followed this up on 13 March 2024 with an email to the landlord in which she said there were sockets hanging off the wall, her immersion heater had not been wired in and one of the radiators had no controller. She also said that she understood the new roof had to be replaced again.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 4 July 2024 in which it included the following information:
1. The landlord said that following its stage 1 reply, it had noticed there had been a lapse in it providing updates on the complaint between 16 February and 24 April 2024.
2. It confirmed that the roofing repairs had been completed on 24 March 2024.
3. It had written to the resident on 25 April 2024 and increased its compensation offer to £700 to recognise the additional time taken to complete the repairs after its stage 1 reply.
4. The landlord said it was unable to deal with the resident’s reports that her children had been ill as a result of the property conditions and provided details of its liability insurer.
5. It had raised an order to resolve the resident’s report that water was coming through the bathroom ceiling due to water pipes sweating in the loft area.
6. The landlord said its handling of the damp and mould issues over recent years had been inadequate. It said that despite undertaking extensive external repairs, the problems had persisted.
7. It said its Repair Coordinator would now oversee the works and liaise with the resident and the appointed contractor.
8. The landlord partially upheld the complaint and offered revised compensation of £774.34, which comprised £100 for time and trouble (including for its complaint handling) and £674.34 for delays with the external repairs, the recurrence of problems, a lack of support in storing the resident’s belongings during the internal works and loss of home enjoyment.
9. The landlord said it had calculated the figure of £674.34 by using 5% of the weekly rent from 22 November 2022 to 31 July 2024.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 reply

The resident wrote to us on 6 October 2024 and said the landlord had failed to resolve the damp and mould issues despite erecting scaffolding various times. She said she had continually needed to use mould cleaning products and redecorate. She stated that she had made complaints in November 2020 and November 2022 but the landlord had not responded. She confirmed that the landlord had carried out internal works in January 2024, including fitting thermal boarding to the walls. However, during the works she said she had to use a neighbour’s shower because of problems with the boiler. She said the landlord had refused to move her temporarily or store her belongings while the works were in progress.
The resident advised us on 6 June 2025 that the bulk of the work had been completed and the only outstanding work was to address the ‘sweating’ pipe in the loft and to replace part of the thermal boarding on one of the walls in the living room, which she said had been damaged. She said she would contact the contractor to arrange for these works to be completed. The resident confirmed that she had rejected the landlord’s offer of £774.34 and was particularly unhappy because she said the landlord had refused to move her temporarily and store her belongings during the January 2024 works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation
In her stage 1 complaint dated 17 January 2024, the resident raised issues she was unhappy about which occurred shortly after she moved to the property in 2003. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from 2022 onwards. Reference to the events that occurred prior to 2022 is made in this report to provide context.
We have received information showing events that took place in relation to the property after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 4 July 2024. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. In this case, it is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response letter. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.
The resident reported various repairs to the landlord during the period covered by our investigation. However, we have focussed our investigation on the matters raised with us by the resident on 6 October 2024 as we consider this to be a fair and reasonable approach.

The resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould

The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are potential hazards and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The structure includes walls, ceilings and the foundations, staircases, bannisters, internal and external plasterwork. The exterior is the outside of the building, including external walls and the roof. It includes drains, guttering and external pipes. It is also a requirement under Section 11 that the landlord must keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of gas, water, electricity, sanitation, space heating, and heating water.
The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that it will categorise repairs and complete them within the following timescales:
1. Emergency repair (within normal working hours) – attend and complete within 4 hours.
2. Emergency repair (outside of normal working hours) – respond within 4 hours and make safe within 12 hours.
3. Recalls (where residents report work has not been completed) – complete within 5 calendar days.
4. Next available (non-urgent repair) – complete within 28 calendar days.
5. Programmed repair (works that require additional time due to complexity, including roofing work with scaffolding, damp works and kitchen replacement) – complete within 60 calendar days.
6. Specialist work (works that fall outside the timescale of a responsive repair due to complexity requiring a specialist contractor) – complete within 60 calendar days.
At the outset of this assessment, we would like to point out that our investigation was hampered by the poor quality of the landlord’s records that were provided to us. The landlord’s repair records lacked detail such as information about the actual works completed. The records were therefore difficult to follow without cross referencing with other information, such as the resident’s own records.
The landlord’s records show that the resident reported damp and mould on 24 February 2022. The notes stated the resident was frustrated that the issue had reoccurred. The landlord therefore raised an order on the same day to investigate damp and mould on the walls in the living room and bedroom. It also raised an order on 28 February 2022 to repair the communal roof, which the order stated was leaking.
Despite us requesting information regarding various jobs from the landlord, it has not provided any evidence to show that the jobs raised on 24 and 28 February were completed. Due to this lack of evidence, we are unable to conclude that the landlord acted appropriately in addressing the reported damp, mould and the roof leak reported in February 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 March 2022 and confirmed that it had approved the works recommended by a specialist dampness contractor (it is not clear from the evidence when the survey was carried out).The recommendations included roofing repairs. As the landlord had received a report from a specialist contractor, it was reasonable for the landlord to approve the work and commission the contractor to carry out the recommendations.
The evidence shows that by November 2022, the landlord had not yet started the work recommended by the specialist contractor, including the roofing work. Consequently, the resident contacted the landlord again on 22 November 2022 to report a roof leak at the side of the building, which she said was affecting her daughter’s bedroom. She said she was using dehumidifiers and was regularly cleaning mould. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not yet started the works recommended by the specialist contractor, despite writing to the resident 8 months earlier to say it had approved the works.
The resident phoned the landlord again on 2 December 2022 regarding the roof leak and was advised that the roof work had been booked in for 16 January 2023. The landlord’s notes of the conversation state that the resident had declined its offer to carry out a mould wash as she said there was little point in cleaning the mould until the roof leak had been repaired.
The landlord phoned the resident on 24 January 2023 and confirmed that the works were still outstanding, including the reported roof leak. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not yet arranged the roof works or the other works recommended by the specialist contractor, despite the resident having been told on 2 December 2022 that the roof repairs were booked to be carried out on 16 January 2023.
The landlord’s Surveyor inspected the property on 1 February 2023 and identified various internal and external works, including repairing the roof and fixing thermal boarding to some of the walls internally. The Surveyor noted that the resident would need to be temporarily rehoused to enable the contractor to carry out the works. As it had been over a year since the specialist contractor had inspected the property, it was reasonable for the landlord’s own Surveyor to carry out a new inspection on 1 February 2023.
Following the Surveyor’s inspection, the landlord raised an order on 10 February 2023 for the external work and the work was completed on 25 May 2023. The work included renewing lead flashing and renewing some of the roof/ridge tiles. It had therefore taken over 3 months to carry out the work after the landlord had raised the order. This was longer than the 60-calendar day timescale set out in the Responsive Repair Policy for roofing work. However, the landlord’s records show that the contractor experienced difficulties putting up scaffolding because of difficulties accessing the downstairs flat. Therefore, given these access issues, the contractor carried out the roof repairs within a reasonable timescale after receiving the order.
On 22 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report a damp patch on the bathroom ceiling, which she said may have been caused by a leaking tank in the roof space. A contractor attended on 13 September 2023, which was 22 calendar days after the resident reported the issue. As the matter was not deemed to be an emergency, the contractor attended within its 28-calendar day timescale for non-urgent repairs, which was appropriate. After attending, the contractor asked the landlord to refer the matter to the heating contractor as it believed there may have been a boiler related leak.
The heating contractor attended on 28 September 2023 and reported there were no issues with the boiler. The operative’s notes stated that the resident had advised there had previously been a roof leak which had since been repaired. The operative noted there were no leaks present and the boiler was operating correctly. The landlord had arranged for its contractors to attend within reasonable timescales to check the resident’s concerns regarding a possible leak from the loft area.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 October 2023 to report that although the roofing works had been carried out, the external pointing and the internal works had not been progressed. She said she was unable to use her kitchen cupboards due to mould.
As the landlord had carried out the roofing works in May 2023, it was unreasonable that more than 4 months later it had not arranged for the remaining work to be progressed, particularly the internal works. It was also unreasonable that the landlord had not communicated the next steps to the resident given that she had reported damp and mould in 2022. The lack of proactive arrangements for the follow-on works and the lack of communication showed poor tracking of repairs by the landlord.
In January 2024, the landlord’s contractors carried out the repointing on the front and rear elevations, repairs to the guttering and the internal works, including the renewal of the kitchen and thermal boarding. It had therefore taken 8 months following the completion of the roofing work in May 2023 to carry out the remaining external work and the internal work. This was unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy which states “We take into account the effect that damp, mould and condensation have on residents and prioritise work to tackle this”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 February 2024 to report that the roof was leaking. The landlord recalled the roofing contractor that had previously carried out work to the roof. This was appropriate as the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy says the contractor must return to correct the defect where there are quality issues regarding previous work. The contractor attended on 16 February 2024, which was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord as it was slightly longer than the published 5-calendar day timescale for recalls.
The roofing contractor found that the ducting and plastic flue in the roof space were leaking and would need to be passed to a different contractor. It also found a second leak which it said was coming through the chimney shared with the next-door property and was a new issue. The landlord raised an order on 20 February 2024 to repair the leaks, which it said were ‘containable’. Its records show that scaffolding was erected in March 2024 and the repairs were completed on 24 March 2024. The repairs had therefore taken 33 calendar days to complete from the date the order was raised. As scaffolding had been needed, the landlord had carried out the repairs within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord raised an order on 27 June 2024 to investigate a dripping pipe in the loft area. An operative had identified that some of the pipes in the loft were ‘sweating’ and dripping onto the ceiling. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 reply that an appointment had been made for a contractor to attend on 15 July 2024. As the repair was a non-urgent (28-calendar day) job, the timescale for the appointment was reasonable.
The evidence shows there were different roof repairs reported and carried out during 2023 and 2024 and that scaffolding had to be erected. This caused inconvenience for the resident, as she described when she contacted the landlord on 13 March 2024. However, based on the evidence seen, we are unable to say whether the landlord could have taken steps to reduce the number of times it erected scaffolding or carried out works to the roof. We have therefore focussed on how the landlord responded to the various reports of leaks made by the resident.
One of the resident’s concerns raised with the landlord was the level of disruption she faced during the internal works that were carried out from 10 to 24 January 2024. She wrote to the landlord on 2 February 2024 and said it should have temporarily rehoused her during the works. The evidence indicates that the works were extensive and involved significant disruption to the resident as it included renewing the kitchen and fixing thermal boarding to the walls. Following his inspection on 1 February 2023, the landlord’s Surveyor had written to the landlord’s Damp and Mould team advising that the resident would need to be temporarily rehoused (decanted) to allow the works to proceed.
The landlord’s records suggest that the resident may have initially agreed not to be decanted during a conversation with her. However, in our view, such conversations would not have removed the landlord’s responsibility to ensure it was safe and reasonable for the family to remain in occupation during the works. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord met with the resident to assess the risks of remaining in the property during the works. We would expect such an assessment to be carried out and to take account of any vulnerabilities in relation to the resident and her household members. We have also not seen any evidence that the landlord discussed with the resident whether it would be necessary to store her belongings prior to the work commencing.
The landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy states: “Where the work required to the home is extensive, we may need to temporarily move residents in line with our Decant Policy”. The Alternative Accommodation (Decants) Policy states: “We will make the final decision about whether to rehouse residents during works, and we will consider the needs of the household in doing this”. In this case, the works were known to be extensive and the resident had young, vulnerable children (she had written to the landlord in December 2023 advising that 2 of her children had been hospitalised due to pneumonia). It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord had not met with the resident to formally assess the risks involved in the resident remaining in the property during the works or discussed the temporary storage of her belongings.
The resident outlined some of the impact of the internal works on her family in her emails dated 2 February 2024 and 6 May 2024. She said the impact included:
1. Sending her children to afterschool clubs as there was no where to sit in the property.
2. Buying take-away meals as there were no kitchen facilities.
3. Using a neighbour’s wash facilities.
4. Running dehumidifiers to reduce humidity levels.
5. She said some of her possessions had been damaged (this is considered separately below).
6. She said she had been assured prior to the work starting that the contractor would work on one room at a time. However, she said the contractor had worked on 3 or 4 rooms at the same time.
In summary, we have found the following failings in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould:
1. We have seen no evidence that the landlord acted on the orders it raised in February 2022 to investigate damp and mould and repair the communal roof.
2. Although the landlord wrote to the resident on 25 March 2022 to say it had approved the works recommended by a specialist dampness contractor, it did not carry out the roofing work until May 2023.
3. It then took a further 8 months to carry out the remaining works, including the internal work, in January 2024.
4. During 2022 and 2023, the landlord did not adequately communicate the timing of the works and the next steps to the resident.
5. The landlord did not take appropriate steps to assess and communicate the risks of the resident remaining in the property during the internal works in January 2024. The landlord therefore did not adequately consider the impact of the works on the resident, taking into account the circumstances of the family, including their vulnerabilities.
6. The landlord did not adequately discuss with the resident the options for storing her belongings temporarily while works were in progress.
The delays in progressing the roofing work and the damp and mould works caused stress and inconvenience to the resident, which she expressed in her stage 1 complaint dated 17 January 2024 and her email dated 6 May 2024. She said that the leaks and the water damage “became unbearable” in Autumn 2023, resulting in her having to clean “thick mould” weekly in all rooms except the hallway. She also advised the landlord that there had been a smell of damp in the kitchen and she had to dispose of food because water had been leaking above the kitchen units. The evidence therefore indicates that the delays in addressing the leaks, damp and mould caused the resident significant detriment.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by using its stage 2 reply to acknowledge some of its failings, including not making proper arrangements to store the resident’s belongings and accepting that its handling of the reported damp and mould issues had been inadequate. However, it did not specifically identify its failure to properly assess the risks involved in the resident remaining in the property while the internal works were underway. This was a missed opportunity to acknowledge the distress this had caused the resident and to put things right.
The landlord sought to put things right by advising the resident that it had instructed its Repairs Coordinators to oversee the few repairs that were still outstanding. It also offered compensation of £774.34, which was comprised of £100 for its complaints handling (this is considered below) and £674.34 for distress and inconvenience. The latter figure was calculated at 5% of the rent for the period 22 November 2022 to 31 July 2024.
Based on our assessment, we consider the period used by the landlord to calculate its offer of compensation was appropriate. However, in our view, the percentage of the rent used to calculate the compensation did not adequately reflect the level of detriment to the resident. In particular, it did not adequately reflect:
1. The impact of the delays in addressing the leaks, damp and mould reported by the resident.
2. The impact of the landlord’s failure to properly assess whether the resident needed to be temporarily moved to allow the works to proceed in January 2024.
Our view is that the compensation offered to the resident should be based on 10% of the rent for the period of 22 November 2022 to 31 July 2024. This gives a figure of £1,348.68, which we have rounded to £1,350 and ordered the landlord to pay to the resident to put things right. This figure is in line with our Remedies Guidance for situations where there have been serious failings by the landlord.
We welcome that the landlord offered compensation to the resident to recognise the distress and inconvenience she had experienced. Had it not made such an offer, we would have made a finding of severe maladministration due to the significant impact on the resident. However, we have made a finding of maladministration in this case in order to recognise that the landlord had made an attempt to put things right by offering compensation and had carried out most of the repairs by the time of its stage 2 reply.

The resident’s reports of issues with the boiler and electrical sockets

The resident contacted the landlord on 18 January 2024 to report she had no heating or hot water. The landlord raised an order on the same day and the contractor attended on 19 January 2024, which was a reasonable timescale. The contractor unblocked the condense pipe but said repairs were needed to the gas heating thermostat. The landlord therefore raised a follow-on order on 19 January 2024 to carry out this work. The landlord also raised an order on 23 January 2024 which said the resident had no hot water and only ‘lukewarm’ heating.
The landlord’s repairs log states that the contractor attended on 24 January 2024 but was unable to access the boiler because another contractor was working in the kitchen. The operative noted that the boiler controls were hanging from the wall. The operative advised the resident to call back when the contractor had finished working on the kitchen renewal.
We have not seen any evidence that the landlord provided temporary heating while the heating contractor was unable to access the boiler. The landlord’s website states that a loss of heating during 31 October to 1 April is categorised as an emergency. Although the resident had “lukewarm” central heating we would expect the landlord to have supplied additional temporary heating as it was winter and the heating contractor had not been able to access the boiler. The landlord was aware that the resident had young children and she had advised the landlord in December 2023 that 2 of her children had been hospitalised due to pneumonia.
The landlord’s records show that a further order was raised on 7 February 2024 for no heating and hot water and this is shown as having been resolved by the contractor on the same day, which was appropriate.
The landlord’s records show that there were various reported problems with the boiler thermostat and controls as follows:
1. On 19 January 2024, the heating contractor had identified the need for repairs to the gas heating thermostat.
2. On 30 January 2024, a contractor attended and said there was a missing receiver for the thermostat due to previous work carried out by a different contractor. The operative said the other contractor had carried out a temporary fix to allow the boiler to provide heating. He noted that an electrician was needed to fit a new receiver and thermostat.
3. The resident reported to the landlord on 21 February 2024 that the heating was coming on every time she used the hot water.
4. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 March 2024 to report a reoccurring issue with the thermostat which meant she was having to turn off the boiler manually.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 May 2024 and said that her boiler had been faulty due to being wired incorrectly by the heating contractor during the works in January 2024. However, the landlord did not address this point in its stage 2 reply. During our investigation, we also requested further information from the landlord about the reported issues with the thermostat, however, the landlord said it was unable to provide further details.
Due to the lack of information provided regarding the reported issues with the boiler thermostat/controls, we are unable to conclude that the landlord dealt with the issues appropriately during the period from 19 January to 13 March 2024. The landlord’s own contractor had identified issues with the boiler wiring and controls and the evidence shows that the resident reported issues with the boiler thermostat/controls on various occasions during this period. We have therefore concluded that the delay in permanently addressing the issues with the thermostat/controls was unreasonable. The landlord was aware that the resident had vulnerable children and therefore it was important for her to have a correctly functioning boiler during the Winter months.
One of the other issues reported by the resident was that the contractor had left unsafe electrical cables and sockets in the kitchen after completing the work in January 2024. As part of her stage 2 complaint, the resident wrote to the landlord on 6 May 2024 and said there had been exposed sockets in her kitchen from January to April 2024. The evidence shows that the matter had previously been brought to the landlord’s attention on the following occasions:
1. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 January 2024 to report that during the work on her kitchen, the contractor had left exposed wiring in the kitchen.
2. She wrote to the landlord on 2 February 2024 and said there was a live electric cable hanging in the kitchen and this had caused her toaster to burn out.
3. She contacted the landlord on 16 February 2024 to report that the plug sockets in the kitchen still needed to be fixed to the wall.
4. The landlord’s heating contractor noted when he attended on 21 February 2024 that the kitchen sockets still needed to be fixed back to the wall.
5. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 April 2024 to say that the kitchen plug sockets were still outstanding.
It is unclear from the landlord’s records when it secured the sockets to the wall in the kitchen. However, the evidence indicates it was sometime during week commencing 29 April 2024. It had therefore taken the landlord over 3 months to secure the socket outlets to the wall in the kitchen. This was unreasonable as the landlord was aware that the resident had young, vulnerable children.
Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords are required to keep electrical installations in repair. Additionally, the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) states: “The dwelling should not contain any deficiency that might give rise to a hazard which interferes with, or puts at risk, the health or safety, or even the lives, of the occupants”. This includes electrical hazards, which is one of the hazards listed in the HHSRS. In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord did not carry out timely repairs to the electrical sockets to ensure they would not pose a hazard to the resident and her household.
In its stage 2 reply, the landlord apologised for the length of time it took to rectify the electrical sockets.
In summary, we have found the following failings in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the boiler and electrical sockets:
1. The landlord did not provide temporary heating when it was unable to access the boiler to carry out repairs on 24 January 2024.
2. There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord addressing the reported issues with the boiler thermostat/controls.
3. The landlord took over 3 months to refix the electrical sockets to the wall in the kitchen.
Given the impact and potential health and safety implications of these failings, we have found there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the boiler and electrical sockets. The repairs have now been completed, however, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £400 to put things right for its failings. This figure is in line with our Remedies Guidance for situations where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident. The amount ordered reflects the following factors:
1. The seriousness of the failings in terms of the health and safety of the resident’s household.
2. The time and effort used by the resident in chasing the landlord to carry out the repairs.
3. The stress and anxiety experienced by the resident regarding the heating, hot water and the electrical safety issues.
4. The vulnerabilities of the resident’s children.

The resident’s reports of damage to personal belongings

The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 February 2024 and said she wanted to claim for various items that she said had been broken or damaged due to the reported damp and mould and the work carried out in January 2024. In its stage 1 reply on 16 February 2024, the landlord provided a link to its Insurance Team. It said the resident could make a claim for the damaged items if she did not have contents insurance or she felt that the landlord was liable for the damage to the contents of her home. The landlord reiterated this advice in its stage 2 reply dated 4 July 2024 and said the resident could contact its Insurance Team for guidance on making a liability claim.
Where a resident reports that their possessions have been damaged by the actions of a landlord or its contractor, we would expect the landlord to assess the claim itself or provide the resident with details of its insurer so the resident can decide whether they wish to make a claim. Where an insurance claim may be required, we would expect landlords to offer appropriate support to residents to assist with the claims process. In this case, the landlord provided details of its Insurance Team within 2 weeks of the resident’s claim for the damaged items. It had therefore responded to her request within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord advised the resident she could submit a claim for the damaged items if she felt the landlord was liable for the damage. This was reasonable as it provided the resident with a means for her claim to be considered through the landlord’s insurance. The landlord also advised the resident that its Insurance Team could guide the resident with her claim. This was reasonable as it indicated to the resident that guidance and support was available to her if she wanted to make a claim.
Based on the evidence seen, the landlord acted reasonably by responding to the resident’s claim for damaged items in a timely manner and by providing details of its Insurance Team so she could make a claim should she wish to do so. We have therefore found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her personal belongings.

The associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process and its Complaints Policy states it will:
1. Log new complaints within 5 working days.
2. Respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of logging.
3. Respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the date of receipt.
4. At both stages, if the landlord cannot respond by the deadline, it may extend the timescale by an additional 10 working days. If such an extension is needed, the landlord will provide the resident with a clear explanation and a timescale of when the response will be received. The deadline will not be extended for longer than 10 working days without good reason.
The resident submitted an online complaint form to the landlord on 22 November 2022. The landlord sent an acknowledgement the next day to say it had referred the matter to its General Maintenance Team who would address the issues. The form was therefore not logged or dealt with as a complaint. This was inappropriate as the resident had clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of water leaking into her bedroom and living room. The landlord’s Complaints Policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord. The landlord’s decision not to log the complaint was therefore not in accordance with its policy.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 17 January 2024. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint. The landlord’s Complaints Policy which was in operation at the time did not stipulate the need for it to acknowledge stage 1 or stage 2 complaints. However, our Complaint Handling Code at the time stated: “When a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 of the complaints procedure within 5 days of receipt”. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord had not acknowledged the complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 16 February 2024, which was 22 working days after logging the complaint. This exceeded the 10-working day timescale in the landlord’s policy and was therefore inappropriate. The landlord said in its stage 2 reply that the delay in responding was because there had been a delay in assigning the stage 1 complaint to the complaint handler due to a high volume of complaints being received and staff shortages.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 February and said she wanted the landlord to escalate her complaint. The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 April 2024 and responded to the various reasons the resident had given for wanting to escalate her complaint. The landlord offered the resident £700 compensation for its service failings and asked the resident whether she still wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s response was not in line with its Complaints Policy as the resident had clearly requested the landlord to escalate her complaint on 29 February 2024. The landlord should therefore have logged the stage 2 complaint at that point. It was inappropriate that the landlord had not logged the stage 2 complaint when it received it on 29 February 2024.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 May 2024 and asked it to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord logged and acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 14 May 2024 and sent its stage 2 reply on 4 July 2024. The landlord had therefore taken 36 working days to respond after acknowledging the complaint on 14 May 2024. The time taken was inappropriate as we have not seen any evidence that the landlord wrote to the resident to extend the timescale.
To summarise, we have identified the following failings in the landlord’s complaints handling:
1. It did not log or process the webform submitted by the resident on 22 November 2022 as a stage 1 complaint.
2. It did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint dated 17 January 2024.
3. It sent its stage 1 reply on 16 February 2024, which was 22 days after logging the complaint.
4. It did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 when asked to do so by the resident on 29 February 2024.
5. It sent its stage 2 response 36 working days after logging the stage 2 complaint on 14 May 2024.
The landlord used its stage 2 reply to apologise for its complaint handling failings and said its Complaints Team was undergoing structural changes and would be getting additional staff. It offered compensation of £100.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy says that it will offer up to £100 for “minor” failures to follow its complaints process, and up to £200 for “moderate” failures. As the landlord had failed to deal with the complaints appropriately at both stages of the process, we do not consider the landlord’s offer to have been adequate to put things right. We have therefore found there was service failure on the basis that although the landlord made an offer of compensation, it was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100, which is in line with our Remedies Guidance for service failures. The total of £200 compensation is also in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy for “moderate” complaint handling failures, which we consider to be more appropriate in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the boiler and electrical sockets.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damage to personal belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to provide evidence that it has:
1. Written to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Paid the resident a total of £1,950 compensation comprised of:
1. £1,350 for its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould. The landlord may deduct the £674.34 it has already offered if this has been paid.
2. £400 for its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the boiler and electrical sockets
3. £200 for complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct the £100 it has already offered if this has been paid.
1. Provided the resident with a plan including timescales for carrying out any outstanding repairs relating to leaks, damp and mould.