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

Peabody Trust (202444304)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202444304

Peabody Trust

20 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:
    1. Reports of damp and mould, associated repairs, and a move to temporary accommodation.
    2. Request for compensation for damage to belongings.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. She has lived with her family in the 3-bed house since 1993. The resident has informed the landlord of her health conditions, but the landlord has stated it has no vulnerabilities recorded.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould in the bathroom and kitchen on 26 July 2023. The evidence does not confirm if the landlord responded. The resident reported damp and mould in the lounge and bedrooms on 12 January 2024. The landlord inspected the property on 20 January 2024 and referred the case to its Surveying Team on 22 January 2024 stating there was “severe damp and mould” in the property and there was concern for the health and wellbeing of the resident and her family. A surveyor inspected the property on 12 February 2024 and requested damp and mould treatment and proofing work after seeing mice in the room. The resident asked for a temporary move to allow the repairs, but the landlord said this was not necessary.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 7 March 2024. She said:
    1. there was damp and mould coming through the walls, and it was ruining paintwork, furniture, and bedding, and there were mice issues
    2. she was receiving inconsistent information and wanted honest answers
    3. the problem kept coming back despite previous repairs and she wanted to move
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 30 July 2024. In summary, it said:
    1. it had completed pest treatment in May 2023, January 2024, and raised an order in March 2024 for a further inspection; but in May 2024 after several no access visits it had closed the order
    2. it applied damp and mould treatment to the affected areas in August 2023
    3. when further issues were raised in January 2024, a contractor attended, and a referral was made for a Surveyor to inspect the property
    4. a specialist order was raised on 1 March 2024 to investigate the damp, and on 26 June 2024 a contractor advised of possible rising damp
    5. a Surveyor attended on 7 March 2024, but found it difficult to inspect the property due to the number of belongings. A suggestion was made to put items into storage to allow the repairs to be done
    6. an extensive damp and mould order was raised to a specialist contractor on 17 July 2024, but it had not been allocated. It would monitor the outstanding work and check in with the resident when the work was completed
    7. it had responded within its timescales for the repairs reported, but there had been delays on both sides due to access issues, and the Surveyor’s inspection fell out of timescale
    8. there had been a lack of contact and structure to the complaint responses
    9. it was working with the Surveying Team to ensure work was raised efficiently, and the Complaint Team was working hard to meet timescales
    10. it offered £450 for the service failures, complaint handling, and time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 30 July 2024. She was unhappy with the compensation offered, the handling of her complaint escalation, and the progress made in relation to the repairs
  6. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 23 December 2024. In summary, it said:
    1. it was sorry for the delays, lack of communication, conflicting information, and inconsistent updates throughout the repair and complaints process
    2. it recognised the severity of the conditions in the resident’s home, the impact on the family’s health and well-being, and said it should have resolved the situation sooner
    3. the resident’s photographs provided evidence of the loss of personal items, and it should have considered compensation sooner
    4. it had raised an order and expected the repairs to start early in 2025. This included the removal of defective plaster, damp and mould treatment, repointing the external wall, and installation of extractor fans in the kitchen
    5. it had not met its policies and the prolonged delays, lack of communication, and failure to act promptly highlighted “significant shortcomings”
    6. it was expediting the work. The resident would receive a start date by 15 January 2025, and the complaint would remain open to allow monitoring and updates
    7. the investigation was limited to assessing service failures. It signposted the resident to the insurance team to discuss a personal injury claim
    8. it was increasing the compensation offer to a total of £1,350 (£900 for the serious disruption, distress, inconvenience and impact of the damp and mould, £300 as a discretionary contribution to the damaged belongings, and £150 for the complaint handling)
  7. The resident referred her complaint to us on 3 February 2025. She said:
    1. she moved temporarily 3 years ago to allow damp and mould repairs, but it had returned. The full property was covered in damp and mould, and it had led to a pest infestation and loss of belongings
    2. there was rising damp throughout the property, the bathroom was wet all the time, the skirting boards and woodwork were rotten. The landlord said it would do all the work and put belongings into storage, but it had not happened, and the work proposed did not include all the works proposed by the Surveyor
    3. she was disabled, had asthma, and had been in and out of hospital due the issues in her home
  8. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident asked for the repairs to be completed while she was in temporary accommodation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The evidence confirms the resident was moved into temporary accommodation in 2022 while damp and mould repairs were completed in her home. The resident’s most recent complaint was made on 7 March 2024.
  2. We consider it reasonable for a resident to raise a formal complaint about matters within a reasonable period of these occurring, usually considered to be 12 months. This allows the landlord an opportunity to investigate the matters while they are still live and while relevant records are still readily available. It is not evident the resident raised a formal complaint about the move into temporary accommodation which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As such, based on the evidence provided, it would fair and reasonable to focus on events from July 2023 when the damp and mould was reported again, to 23 December 2024, the date of the final complaint response.
  3. The resident has referred to issues that occurred after the final complaint response letter. These include issues with staff conduct and the suitability of temporary properties offered. We can only consider issues that were raised as part of the complaint as the landlord must have the opportunity to provide a formal response on such matters. If the resident wants to pursue these matters, she should raise a new complaint with the landlord in the first instance.
  4. The resident referred to the impact the situation has had on the health of her and her family, along with damage to personal belongings. We can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, but we cannot determine liability for damage to health or belongings. These are matters better suited to an insurance claim or court. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters, she should seek legal advice.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s Repair Policy states it will:
    1. aim to complete non-urgent repairs within 28-calendar days, and programmed or specialist work within 60-calendar days (complex in nature or require specialist contractors)
    2. ask residents to move and put back all personal belongings or fittings which may hinder work being conducted. While it can help with moving these, it will not be liable for any damage or issues that may arise
  2. The landlord’s Damp and Mould Policy states:
    1. it will consider the effect the damp, mould, and condensation have on a resident and prioritise work to tackle this
    2. it has a duty to protect its residents and properties and will temporarily rehouse residents in situations where there is a risk to health and safety
    3. it will conduct repairs when it finds structural, or other significant problems leading to damp and mould. Where work required is extensive, it may need to temporarily move residents in line with its Decant Policy
  3. The landlord’s Decant Policy states:
    1. it will only move a household to alternative accommodation if a property requires extensive work that cannot be done with the resident in the home
    2. it will conduct major repairs while a resident remains in their home wherever possible and each case will be assessed individually
    3. it has a responsibility to protect the resident’s items by securing the home or using storage companies when it will arrange and pay for the removal and storage of possessions
  4. The landlord’s Vulnerability Policy states it will collect and record information about residents for the purpose of undertaking a vulnerability assessment. If a resident is assessed as being vulnerable it will use the information to deliver services that meet individual needs and help to access appropriate support.

Reports of damp and mould, associated repairs, and a move to temporary accommodation

  1. The resident reported damp and mould in the property in July 2023, and further damp and mould in January 2024. There is no evidence to confirm what action the landlord took until a contractor inspected the property on 20 January 2024. This was a record keeping failure and makes it difficult to assess if the landlord fulfilled its repair obligations within its repair timescales. As such, it cannot be concluded the landlord responded appropriately.
  2. Following the inspection on 20 January 2024, the landlord referred the case to its Surveying Team. It stated there was potential rising damp and a vermin problem. It was appropriate, therefore, that a further inspection was raised to identify the extent of the issue.
  3. On 12 February 2024, the Surveyor’s inspection confirmed the walls and ceilings had damp and mould, and mice were seen during the inspection. It requested anti-mould treatment, repairs to the windows and ceiling hatch, proofing work and the possible storage of items. The repairs were assigned to a contractor on 14 February 2024, but there is no evidence the landlord informed the resident of any appointment dates. This led to her spending time and effort pursing updates. This was unreasonable and a communication failure of the landlord.
  4. A third property inspection was completed on 11 July 2024. It said the property was found to be in a fair condition with no black mould noted at the time. It noted repairs to the guttering, re-pointing, front and rear doors, kitchen, lounge, and middle bedroom. It advised further investigations were needed to source high damp readings in the kitchen and bathroom and a potential issue with the roof.
  5. The resident continued to ask for a temporary move and included the issue in her complaint on 7 March 2024. Despite repeating the request through to July 2024, the landlord failed to respond and did not address the issue in its stage 1 complaint response on 30 July 2024. It advised “an extensive damp and mould order had been raised,” but said the work had not been allocated. It did not demonstrate an understanding of how the situation was affecting the resident or set her expectations by providing an indicative timeframe. This was unreasonable and the resident escalated her complaint.
  6. While pest control work was completed in August and 23 September 2024, there is no evidence of any progress regarding the repairs, or any communication to the resident. Where a contractor has completed works, it would be reasonable to keep the resident informed about the progress and outcomes, which the landlord did not do.
  7. A contractor inspected the property again on 17 October 2024. The Surveyor’s report concluded there were signs of poor sub-floor ventilation, blocked guttering, defective flashing or roof tiles, excessive moisture on the walls, significant dampness in the timbers, and decaying flooring. It noted surface mould growth due to condensation in the bedrooms because of inadequate ventilation. The Surveyor recommended repairs which included inserting a chemical DPC, applying a liquid DPM, hacking off and re-applying plastering of walls, mould treatment, and the servicing and replacement of extractor fans.
  8. On 14 November 2024 the landlord’s internal emails confirmed it was assigning the work to a contractor as a priority, however, there is no evidence the work progressed, or any communication to the resident. This was unreasonable.
  9. The landlord’s internal communication confirmed its knowledge of the resident’s health and that the property condition was affecting her, her son and grandson who had been poorly with chest infections and hospital stays. It is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the expert opinions of its own Surveyor and the external Surveyor who both said the repairs could be done with the resident in situ, but there is no evidence it completed a vulnerability assessment at any stage of the process. This meant it did not confirm the resident’s vulnerabilities, determine the effect the repairs may have on her health, or if it needed to consider a temporary move based on the information it collected. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with its Vulnerability or Decant Policy.
  10. It is reasonable for a landlord to complete repairs in the timeframes outlined in its policies, and where there is a delay, to keep the resident informed. However, from the time the resident raised the damp and mould issues to the landlord, through to the final complaint response, its communication to the resident was delayed, lacked detail, was at times not clear, and failed to address the concerns raised. Due to this, the resident had to spend avoidable time and effort pursuing the landlord for updates. This was unreasonable.
  11. On 23 December 2024, and with no evidence of any repairs completed, the landlord provided its final complaint response. It acknowledged the delays, the lack of communication, the conflicting information and the impact on the resident. It confirmed the work it had assigned to a contractor and said it would confirm a start date by 15 January 2025. While this report will not assess the events after the final complaint response, it is evident the landlord did not confirm the start date as stated and this led to more chases from the resident.
  12. The landlord offered the resident £900 compensation for the serious disruption, and distress and inconvenience caused by the impact of the damp and mould on her health. This was within its “Extensive disruption” banding of compensation and was an appropriate offer.
  13. In August 2025, the landlord has informed us it has secured a temporary property for the resident to move into. Once the resident has moved into the temporary accommodation, it will inspect the property and assess the work required.
  14. Considering the above, we find service failure. The landlord acknowledged its failings and offered a proportionate level of compensation which was in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration. However, it did not identify any learning to prevent a recurrence and failed to identify its lack of a vulnerability assessment as per its Vulnerability Policy. As such an order has been made to reflect these service failures.

Request for compensation for damage to belongings

  1. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states:
    1. compensation will not be paid where damage should be covered by contents insurance
    2. compensation for distress and inconvenience can range from £50 to £600 (Disruption – a failure of short to medium duration with no permanent impact), £600 to £1,000 (Extensive disruption – a failure of medium to long duration with high, long or short term impact) or £1,000 plus (Serious disruption – a failure which was significant in terms of the event itself and (or) its duration causing serious short or long term impact
    3. compensation for time and trouble can range from £50 to £150 (a failure to follow the complaints policy or procedure with low level impact), £151 to £250 (a failure to follow the complaints policy or procedure, or to correctly investigate a complaint, resulting in inconvenience and effort to progress), or £251 to £400 (a failure to follow the complaints policy or procedure, or to investigate a complaint correctly, causing a significant impact on the complainant)
  2. The resident told the landlord her belongings had been damaged by the damp and mould. In its final complaint response on 23 December 2024, the landlord acknowledged the damage to the belongings and agreed it should have considered compensation earlier to allow her the opportunity to replace the items sooner.
  3. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states it will not compensate for damage that should be covered by contents insurance. The landlord established the resident did not have insurance but, in line with its Compensation Policy, it assessed the case on its own merits, recognised its delays contributed to the damage, and offered £300 discretionary payment to help replace the damaged items. It also recommended the resident considered contents insurance to protect her belongings. This was reasonable and as such, a finding of no maladministration is appropriate.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaint Policy states:
    1. it will log stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt
    2. it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days and stage 2 complaints within 20-working days, both from the acknowledgement date
    3. if at any stage more time is required, this will not exceed 10 days without good reason and will be communicated to the resident
  2. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords should:
    1. acknowledge, define, and log stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt
    2. issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and within 20-working days of a stage 2 complaint escalation request
    3. decide whether an extension to these timescales is needed and inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10-working days for stage 1 complaints (20 working days for stage 2 complaints) without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident
    4. if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure
  3. The resident raised her complaint on 7 March 2024 but there is no evidence the landlord acknowledged receipt. This was not in line with the policy.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 30 July 2024, 100-working days after it was received. Except for one email to the resident on 14 June 2024, there is no evidence the landlord communicated the delay or an expected response date to her. This led to the resident spending time and effort pursuing the landlord for updates. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the policy or the Code.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 July 2024 after she received the stage 1 response. She raised her dissatisfaction with the compensation offer and said she should receive more. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to discuss this further, or that it escalated the complaint. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the Code.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 October 2024. She said she had refused the compensation offer and had been waiting for a response. The landlord spoke to the resident on 11 November 2024 when she said she had been told by the case handler it had been escalated. There is no evidence of this. This is a record keeping failure. The resident said she was confused and was receiving mixed messages. The landlord asked for the case to escalated urgently; however, it did not acknowledge the request until 21 November 2024. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the policy or the Code.
  7. The landlord told the resident it aimed to respond by 19 December 2024, but it did not respond until 23 December 2024, 104-working days from when the resident raised her dissatisfaction with the initial response. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy or the Code.
  8. In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed the complaint had highlighted critical areas where it had not followed its policy. It said the prolonged delays and lack of communication were “significant shortcomings.”
  9. The landlord informed the resident the complaint would remain open, and a dedicated co-ordinator would be assigned to monitoring the repairs and keep the resident updated. The landlord increased the initial compensation offer to £150 for the complaint handling. This was in line with its Compensation Policy.
  10. In summary, we find service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord recognised its own failures and made an appropriate offer of compensation that was in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration. However, it did not identify any learning to prevent a recurrence. An order has been made to reflect the failures highlighted in this report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, associated repairs, and a move to temporary accommodation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to belongings.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. written a letter of apology to the resident which:
      1. addresses the failures highlighted in this report
      2. identifies learning to prevent a recurrence of such failures linked to the handling of the repairs and complaint handling
      3. identifies learning to incorporate the use of the vulnerability assessment in similar cases
    2. paid the resident the total of £1,350 as per its final complaint response
    3. contacted the resident to collect up to date information on her health conditions and any vulnerabilities, and updated its systems
    4. contacted the resident to:
      1. confirm the date of the move to temporary accommodation
      2. confirm the scope of work to be completed
      3. provide a timescale for the work to be completed
      4. agree regular updates on the progress of the work