Peabody Trust (202421457)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421457

Peabody Trust

14 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

The complaint is regarding the landlord’s handling of:
1. Planned works to replace the windows in the property.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has recorded that the resident has a disability.
The landlord had scheduled works to begin on 23 October 2023 to replace the window frames and the glazing at the property. On 19 October 2023, it informed the resident that it had cancelled the works because the design had changed from a glazing and frame replacement to a full box unit replacement. This required new planning permission.
On 19 October 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint. She said that:
1. She was unhappy with the late cancellation.
2. Her windows remained draughty and rotten, and the delays impacted her health.
3. There was black mould under the window frames.
4. She did not agree with the landlord’s revised plan to replace the full window boxes and said that this would cause significant dust, which would impact her health. She said it would also affect her window coverings and furniture placement.
The resident raised further complaints about the planned window replacement on 14 December 2023 and 15 January 2024. She said the only response she had received from her original complaint was on 30 October 2023, when the landlord told her the complaint had gone to the planning team for review. She said the windows were still rotten and draughty and there was mould underneath them.
The resident contacted this Service on 2 September 2024 as she had not received a response to her complaints. On 14 October 2024, we asked the landlord to open a stage 1 complaint. The complaint was about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The replacement windows.
2. The resident’s concerns that the property was cold.
3. The resident’s concerns about the short notice cancellation of works.
4. The resident’s concerns about communication from the landlord.
5. The resident’s complaint.
The stage 1 response was issued on 29 October 2024. In its response, the landlord:
1. Confirmed it had scheduled the window replacement for November 2023 but had reassigned the work to a new contractor.
2. Stated that it had identified issues with the window sizing and had to put the replacement on hold.
3. Apologised for its poor communication.
4. Said this was the first formal complaint but it had found earlier repair and survey cases; the repair case was closed and passed to the surveying team, and the survey case stalled after a manager was absent, so no progress was made.
5. Apologised for the disruption and the impact on the resident’s wellbeing.
6. Confirmed that it would inspect the reported damp and mould.
7. Confirmed that the repairs monitoring team would oversee the window replacement going forward. It said that this team would contact the resident after 18 November 2024 and keep her updated.
8. Offered £1,000 in compensation for distress, inconvenience and excessive disruption.
The resident escalated her complaint on 19 November 2024. She said that the landlord had not provided an update on the window replacement, and she could not reach anyone to discuss it.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 10 February 2025 and asked for a stage 2 response within 5 working days. The stage 2 response was issued on 14 February 2025. In its response, the landlord:
1. Apologised and acknowledged that it had not managed the window replacement effectively.
2. Explained that the change from replacing the frames to a full box replacement caused a misunderstanding with the contractors, resulting in the delay.
3. Advised that access issues from the neighbouring property had also delayed progress.
4. Confirmed that a new contractor had taken over, and works would begin within 12-16 weeks to allow time to resubmit a planning application.
5. Acknowledged that it had failed to follow its complaints policy and only progressed the complaint after the Ombudsman’s involvement.
6. Apologised for its poor communication and confirmed a single point of contact would oversee the works and keep the resident updated.
7. Offered an additional £900 compensation, made up of £500 for the continued distress and disruption, and £400 for the time and trouble caused by failures in complaint handling.

Events after the landlord’s complaint process

On 18 February 2025 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested that the landlord use the original plan to replace only the frames and glazing. She also asked for further clarity on the schedule. In its response on 24 February 2024 the landlord explained that the original planning permission had expired, and it had submitted a new planning application.
On 29 April 2024, the landlord informed the resident that it expected the works to begin 12–16 weeks from March 2025. On the same day, resident asked if this change would affect the overall schedule, requested confirmation of the planning status, and explained that delays beyond July 2025 would disrupt her personal plans. She also asked whether the scaffolding, originally erected for roofing works, would remain in place until the window replacement was complete. On 7 May 2025, the landlord replied that it was unaware of earlier commitments and repeated the revised timeline.
On 6 June 2025, the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint. She said that the landlord had failed to honour the 12–16 week timeframe to replace the windows that it committed to in its stage 2 response.
The landlord informed the resident on 9 July 2025 that scaffolding would not go up before the end of August 2025 due to the Notting Hill Carnival. It said that it would provide further updates once it had obtained planning permission and confirmed a start date.
On 7 August 2025, the landlord wrote to the resident and said that no start date for the window replacement had been set.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident raised concerns about damp and mould in their initial complaint to the landlord. However, this was not part of the stage 2 escalation or response. The Ombudsman does not investigate matters that have not exhausted a landlord’s complaints process. This report mentions damp and mould only to provide context; we will not investigate it as a separate issue.
In her communication with the landlord, the resident has referenced how this situation has impacted her health. It is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The courts are better suited to handle this issue as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy defines window replacement as programmed work due to the complexity. It should complete the work within 60 calendar days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it can offer payments when a customer faces delays or when it does not deliver a service within its published guidelines. The policy allows up to £650 for time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by serious disruption. It may choose to award more than the set limits if the details of the case show that a higher amount is fair and necessary.

The landlord’s handling of planned works to replace the windows in the property.

The landlord has not disputed that it failed to manage the window replacement according to its responsive repairs policy. In its stage 1 response, it apologised for its poor communication and said that the repair did not meet its own service targets. It offered £1,000 in compensation made up of £500 for its failure to effectively manage the repairs, and £500 for the impact on the resident. It also said that it would contact the contractor with a view to confirming a start date and would update the resident accordingly. While it could have done more to confirm a start date, it took responsibility for the delays and poor communication and offered compensation in line with its policy.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged delays in replacing the windows, poor communication, and failure to meet service standards. It said that a misunderstanding with the design and access issues with another flat caused the delay. It confirmed that the window replacement would begin in 12–16 weeks, and it assigned a dedicated contact for the resident. It awarded a further £500 in compensation for the extensive disruption caused. This was a reasonable response. The landlord acknowledged the causes of the delay, took responsibility for poor communication, and provided a clear plan to resolve the issue. It also offered further compensation in line with its policy.
Overall, it is not disputed that there were significant delays by the landlord in progressing the resident’s window replacement up to February 2025. This extended over years, and the landlord acknowledged poor management of this process and a lack of communication with the resident despite the resident’s stated health concerns.
When a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord’s redress appropriately addressed the issue and resolved the resident’s complaint. In doing so, we apply the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that compensation of up to £1,000 is appropriate when there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord awarded a total amount of £1,500 across both complaint responses for its window replacement failures. It appropriately used its policy and applied discretion to award compensation that was fair and reflected the long-term disruption the resident had experienced.
However, the landlord failed to satisfactorily resolve the resident’s complaint because it did not meet the commitments it made in its stage 2 response. In its response on 14 February 2025, it committed to begin works within 12–16 weeks. This created a clear and reasonable expectation that works would begin by early June 2025, which it has failed to do.
On 18 February 2025, the resident asked the landlord if it could follow the original plan to replace the frames and glazing only. In its reply on 24 February 2025, the landlord said it had contacted the contractor, but it did not respond to the resident’s concerns or confirm if it could use the original plan. This was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations.
On 29 April 2025, the landlord informed the resident that planning permission had expired and that works would begin 3–4 months from March 2025. This timeline did not align with the stage 2 commitment to start work within 12–16 weeks from 14 February 2025. The landlord did not explain the change or acknowledge the difference. Indeed, a staff member who gave updates at this time said they were unaware of the proposed timescale given through the stage 2 response.
On 7 and 8 May 2025, it repeated that timeline and promised a further update within a week but, according to the evidence we have seen, it did not do so until July 2025. At that point, it said the scaffolding could not go up until after the Notting Hill Carnival in late August 2025 and it gave no confirmed start date. Although there may have been valid operational reasons for the delay, the evidence does not identify them, and the resident did not receive an adequate explanation. These failures would have caused the resident ongoing uncertainty, distress, and disruption.
To date, the landlord has not replaced the windows, despite committing to do so in its stage 2 response. It is also unclear if the landlord has finalised the planning process that it identified as a factor in its earlier delays. This failure is unsatisfactory, especially given the resident’s complaints and the landlord’s later assurances. Although the landlord may rely on contractors for updates, it must take responsibility for keeping the resident informed and addressing her concerns. The evidence shows that the landlord gave the resident an inaccurate timeline and failed to progress the works when that timeline changed. While these repairs remain incomplete and no specific start date is offered, the resident likely feels uncertain whether the landlord has taken her concerns seriously. Unresolved repair issues also risk deterioration and the window condition may have worsened over time.
The events since the stage 2 response indicate that the landlord has not put things right or demonstrated sufficient learning from the outcome of the earlier complaint and it has therefore not acted in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. It changed the timeline without a clear explanation and did not keep the resident fully updated or provide meaningful responses to her concerns and questions (for example, whether it could use the scaffolding that was already in place for roofing works). Given the circumstances, a finding of reasonable redress is not appropriate despite the landlord’s significant compensation award, and we have made a finding of maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made. It also states that:
1. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days, and it will respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
2. It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the escalation request.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that, when it considers a complaint, it will assess whether it has followed its complaints procedure in line with the complaints policy. If it has not managed the complaint effectively, it can award up to £300 for a serious failure.
The records show that the resident made a complaint on 19 October 2023. There is no evidence on file that the landlord progressed the matter. This is a failing that would have caused the resident distress, frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
The records show that the resident made further complaints on 14 December 2023 and 15 January 2024. The landlord did not respond to these complaints until this Service raised the matter on 14 October 2024. This delay was significant and unreasonable. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy, and the resident had to chase a response several times before eventually seeking help from this Service.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 19 November 2024. The landlord did not provide a response until 14 February 2025, again, after intervention from this Service. This was an unreasonable delay of 87 working days. These delays would have caused the resident distress, inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. It also prevented the resident from referring the issue to this Service sooner.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delays and poor communication. It also offered a total of £400 in compensation for the distress, inconvenience and the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing the complaint.
This level of redress is in excess of the landlord’s compensation policy and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The guidance states that an award of £400 may remedy maladministration where there was a failure that had an adverse effect on the resident, and the landlord has acknowledged these failings. In this case, the landlord has addressed the identified failings by apologising and offering compensation which provides reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of planned works to replace the windows in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to write to the resident to:
1. Apologise for the additional service failures identified by the Ombudsman.
2. Set out an action plan for replacing the windows, including timeframes for the work, the final design agreed, and the current status of the planning permission. It must also send a copy of the plan to this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident the compensation of £1,500 that it awarded for its failings in the handling of the planned work to replace the windows.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £400 compensation that it awarded for its complaint handling failings. The Ombudsman found reasonable redress for the complaint handling based on the condition that the landlord has paid this compensation.
The landlord should also consider whether it is appropriate to award further compensation to the resident for the continued delays in completion of the window replacement and its communications since the end of the complaints process.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should contact this Service confirming its intentions regarding the recommendations made.