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

Peabody Trust (202335448)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335448

Peabody Trust

5 August 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 response to the resident’s requests for her kitchen to be replaced.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, between 2018 and 2025. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
  2. Between February and September 2023 the resident made at least 2 enquiries asking when her kitchen would be replaced. In response to the first enquiry, the landlord said it was due for replacement in 2023/24. In response to the second enquiry, it said the kitchen was due for replacement within the next 3 years.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 9 October 2023. She said she had been promised a new kitchen, but the date kept being pushed back. She advised the kitchen was in poor condition.
  4. On 17 November 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed, following a recent survey, the kitchen was due for replacement within the next 3 years.
  5. On 12 December 2024 the resident said she was not satisfied with the stage 1 response. She explained that she had lived in the property for 5 years and been told every other year she would get a new kitchen. She said it was in poor condition and she had spent her own money to complete repairs because of this. This was subsequently treated as a request to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
  6. Following contact from us in early March 2024, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2. It sent its stage 2 response on 14 March 2024. This confirmed the kitchen was due for replacement within the next 3 years. It said there was no service failure in its handling of her requests for the kitchen to be replaced; but partially upheld the complaint because there had been complaint handling delays and failures. It apologised and offered £60 compensation.
  7. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint the same month.

Assessment and findings

Resident’s requests for her kitchen to be replaced

  1. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the kitchen in accordance with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says it is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, which includes the kitchen.
  2. The landlord has a planned maintenance programme to replace kitchens. Its website says it does this every 20 years. However, it is important that the landlord assesses every kitchen individually as there may be reasons some need replacing before, or after, the 20 year timeframe. It is reasonable that the landlord would not replace a kitchen where it can complete repairs to resolve any issues. If the kitchen is deemed irreparable, then it would be the landlord’s responsibility to replace it as part of its planned maintenance programme.
  3. The resident has made enquiries with the landlord about the kitchen replacement since 2018. The scope of our investigation has focused on the period 12 months before the resident raised her formal complaint, in October 2023. Anything that happened before October 2022 has been considered for context but not assessed as part of this investigation. 
  4. When the resident asked in February 2023 about her kitchen replacement, she was told it would be replaced in 2023/24. This understandably raised her expectations that the kitchen would be replaced between April 2023 and March 2024. However, when she made enquiries around 5 months later, she was told it would be replaced within 3 years. This was a change from the previous timeframe given and left the resident disappointed, as it appeared the kitchen replacement had been delayed.
  5. It is not clear if this was an error due to incorrect information being given to the resident, or if the landlord changed the date of the kitchen replacement. Its website says while it makes every effort to meet the 20 year timeframe for kitchen replacements, on occasion budget restraints, and in some cases other homes that need to take priority, can affect when planned maintenance works are carried out. This is reasonable and may have been the reason for the change in the replacement date for the resident’s kitchen. Either way, the landlord should have explained why it was giving a different, extended timeframe to the one given 5 months earlier. Its failure to do so was frustrating for the resident and resulted in her making a complaint.
  6. As part of the complaint, the resident said she was unhappy that the date for the kitchen replacement kept being pushed back. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord investigated this or addressed the resident’s concerns as part of the stage 1 or 2 complaints. These were missed opportunities to put things right for the resident sooner.
  7. In a letter to the resident dated 5 September 2023, the landlord said it had reviewed its stock condition data to confirm when the kitchen was due for replacement. The use of stock condition data to set planned maintenance programmes is standard practice across landlords and is a reasonable way for it to plan this type of work.
  8. However, it is important that where residents raise concerns about the condition of their kitchen, the landlord investigates this and assesses the condition in conjunction with its stock condition data. In this case, when the resident made her complaint and said the kitchen was in poor condition, the landlord arranged an inspection to investigate this. This was sensible and showed it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
  9. Following the survey on 7 November 2023, the landlord confirmed the kitchen was due for replacement within 3 years. While disappointing for the resident, it was reasonable that the landlord relied on its surveyor’s opinion regarding the condition of the kitchen; and did not agree to bring the replacement date forward.
  10. When the resident continued to express dissatisfaction with the condition of the kitchen, it was reasonable that the landlord did not arrange another inspection, as it had recently done one. However, it did offer a further inspection to consider any repairs needed. This showed it wanted to help the resident improve the condition of the kitchen, where possible.
  11. After the stage 2 response was sent, a further inspection was completed and subsequent actions taken. As these occurred after the complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, these fall outside the scope of this investigation. If the resident wants these matters assessed, she will need to raise this as a new complaint with the landlord and refer to us once this has completed its internal complaints process.
  12. The landlord said there was no service failure in its handling of this matter. While its decision not to bring the kitchen replacement forward was reasonable, there was a communication failure that caused disappointment for the resident, and the landlord failed to explain or acknowledge this. This amounts to service failure and we have made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £75 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for minor failures that did not affect the overall outcome for the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord sent the stage 1 response in 29 working days. This was over the 10 working day committed timescale, set out in its complaints policy. The policy said if the landlord needed more time, it would explain this to the resident and include a timeframe for when it would send the response. There is no evidence the landlord did this.
  2. In the stage 2 response, the landlord said the resident asked to escalate the complaint on 11 January 2024. This was incorrect, as we have seen evidence from the resident that indicates she submitted this to the landlord on 12 December 2023. Either way, the landlord did not properly log or respond to this request until after our intervention in March 2024. The landlord sent the stage 2 response 64 working days after the resident’s initial escalation request. This was significantly over the 20 working day committed response time set out in its complaints policy.
  3. In total, the resident’s complaint took 93 working days to complete the landlord’s internal process, and only did so with our intervention. This was more than 3 times the committed timescale set out in its complaints policy, and equates to a delay of 9 weeks.
  4. The landlord acknowledged failures in its complaint handling as part of the stage 2 response. It apologised, offered compensation and identified learning. This was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles to put things right and learn from outcomes. Despite this, considering the multiple failures and the extent of the delays, the redress offered is not quite proportionate to the failings identified. Therefore, a finding of service failure is appropriate. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation (inclusive of the £60 already offered, if not done so).

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s requests for her kitchen to be replaced.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the communication failure in its response to her requests for her kitchen to be replaced.
    2. Paid the resident £175 compensation, made up of:
      1. £75 for the communication failure in its response to her requests for her kitchen to be replaced.
      2. £100 for its complaint handling (inclusive of the £60 already offered, if not done so).