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

Peabody Trust (202313887)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313887

Peabody Trust

31 July 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of renewal works to the kitchen, bathroom, and windows.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident occupies a 2 bedroom flat under a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The landlord had a survey completed at the resident’s property on 30 April 2023. The surveyor recommended that the bathroom was to be renewed in 2028 and the kitchen in 2033. The windows were surveyed in 2021 and were due for renewal within 3 years. Several bathroom and kitchen repairs were also raised from January to October 2023. The evidence does not confirm when these repairs were completed.
  3. On 4 June 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about the condition of her bathroom, kitchen, and windows. She said the bath was rusting, the bathroom sink was loose, and the sink was detached from the wall. There was also hole in her worktop that has caused water damage to the ceiling of her neighbours’ property below hers. The resident said she was expecting to have her bathroom and kitchen renovated, as she had chosen the colour scheme with the landlord. Despite this, the landlord told the resident that the renovation was cancelled, as it no longer worked with the contractor. The resident then emailed the landlord on 19 June 2023, as she had not received a response to her complaint. The landlord responded on 22 June 2023, saying that it sent an urgent notification to the stock condition team asking for the case to be reviewed and for the resident to be contacted.
  4. The resident contacted the Service on 10 August 2023, as she had not received a formal response to her complaint sent on 4 June 2023. She said she was concerned about the lack of communication from the landlord and had only received an email on 22 June 2023 after she chased it. There was no further information provided at that stage. On 30 November 2023, the resident called the landlord and said that she had been in the property for 40 years and was overdue a bathroom and kitchen renewal. She said that she had several surveys completed, however the works never followed. The resident also complained about her windows, as they were single glazed and had never been replaced. From the evidence supplied, the landlord’s notes said that it would contact the resident to arrange another survey to assess the windows from both inside and outside the property.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 10 January 2024. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it had reviewed the stock condition data for the resident’s property and confirmed the bathroom was due for renewal in 2024-25. The windows were due for renewal in 2025-26 and the kitchen was not due in the next year. It said that it would contact the resident closer to the time of renewal.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response so she emailed the landlord on 26 January 2024 requesting to escalate her complaint to stage 2. In her escalation, the resident emphasised the urgency of the maintenance required in her property. She said the absence of any confirmed programme dates for the necessary works added to her dissatisfaction. She also complained about the level of customer service she experienced throughout the process falling short of acceptable standards. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 25 April 2024. It said that its stage 2 team was having both structural changes and additional staff recruitment to deal with the increased level of complaints in the sector. This had subsequently caused a backlog in allocating cases.
  7. On 13 June 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response and confirmed that the resident escalated her complaint on 12 March 2024. It said that its stage 1 response was appropriate in detailing the scheduled renewal dates based on stock condition data. However, it failed to adequately address the urgency of the resident’s situation and the significant effect this had on her living conditions. The landlord also said that the resident’s complaint about the lack of timely maintenance had merit. It confirmed that the stage 1 response, while informative, did not fully consider the urgency and the prolonged neglect the resident experienced, particularly regarding the bathroom, which had not been reviewed in 39 years. It said the complaint, due to the failure to address the urgent maintenance needs and the inadequate communication regarding her follow-up emails, was also upheld. The resident was awarded £650 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience she experienced. She was also awarded £150 for the lack of sufficient complaint handling. The landlord said it would make sure that the repair jobs for the kitchen, bathroom, and windows were raised and would be closely monitored. The case would remain open to monitor these repairs and would only be closed once all repairs were completed to the resident’s satisfaction.
  8. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 August 2024 accepting the compensation. She also asked for the dates of the scheduled works, including the expected duration. She followed up with a call the next day trying to speak with the person allocated to deal with her complaint. The landlord advised her that particular person had left it. The resident confirmed to the Service that she received no follow up on the works or compensation since this call.
  9. By July 2025, the resident told the Service that the renewal works had not started and she was not given a date for the works. She also said that, despite her chasing her compensation, the landlord failed pay it.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of renewal works to the kitchen, bathroom, and windows

  1. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that a responsive repair is a maintenance activity where it restores something damaged, faulty, or worn to a good condition in response to a report. This type of repair is also known as reactive, routine, or day to day repairs. Responsive repairs that are programmed because they need additional time for manufacturing, complexity, or specialist trades are to be completed within 60 calendar days however the landlord has an average completion target of 33 calendar days. These include window, kitchen, and bathroom replacements.
  2. The landlord failed to give the resident any scheduled dates for her kitchen, bathroom, and window renewals, or reasonable explanations for the delay in doing so. The resident was left without clear communication or expectations, despite engaging proactively with the landlord and repeatedly chasing it for scheduled dates for the works. The landlord’s actions were not in line with the timescales of its own policy. This is because the resident reported kitchen works from at least 13 January 2023, bathroom works from at least 4 June 2023, and window works from at least 30 November 2023. The landlord’s policy therefore required it to complete replacement works for these issues within 60 calendar days from at least, respectively, 14 March 2023, 3 August 2023, and 29 January 2024. However, the landlord has confirmed that the resident’s property has still not been added to its investments team’s plan for the above works or been given a start date yet as of the date of this report.
  3. The resident continued to raise ongoing concerns about the condition of her kitchen, bathroom, and windows. She repeatedly chased the landlord via webform, email, and telephone on at least 9 occasions between June 2023 and August 2024. Despite this, the landlord failed to take any meaningful action to carry out or schedule the works. This is because it confirmed to us that it had not yet added the resident’s property to its plan for replacement works, and its records did not confirm that it had completed any effective temporary repairs for them in the meantime.
  4. The landlord said that the works would be dealt with urgently by the stock conditions team. It even progressed to the stage of asking the resident to choose colours and flooring options for the renewal. Despite this, no appointments were made to carry out the work. The only appointment that was booked was described by the resident on 4 June 2023 as having subsequently been cancelled due to the contractor no longer working for the landlord. This was not followed up with a rescheduled appointment and was likely to have contributed to further delay and uncertainty for the resident.
  5. The landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the renewal works was inconsistent and contradictory. On the one hand, it stated that the renewal was not due for a few years and on the other it provided assurances that an urgent notification was sent to the stock condition team to review the case. The landlord failed to provide any appointment dates. The year of renewal provided by the surveyor in April 2023 of 2028 for the bathroom differed vastly to the year provided in the landlord’s stage 1 response of 2024-25 for the bathroom. It was also helpful that this was given as 2033 for the kitchen in April 2023 and not in the next year in the stage 1 response, which gave 2025-26 as the renewal year for the windows. The failure to manage expectations reasonably or communicate a clear timeline was likely to have caused distress and frustration for the resident.
  6. The landlord agreed on 13 June 2024 to award the resident £650 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience she experienced. This would have been in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for failures that had a significant effect on the resident. However, over a year later the payment has still not been made. This represents a serious failure in complaint resolution and follow-through. Compensation is intended to acknowledge service failures and provide some remedy for the distress or inconvenience caused. By not issuing the agreed payment, the landlord has not only failed to comply with its own commitment but has also likely caused ongoing frustration and further loss of trust in the complaints process to the resident.
  7. The landlord’s overall handling of the renewal of the bathroom, kitchen and windows was unsatisfactory and fell below the expected standards. Despite the resident raising concerns, the landlord failed to take timely or effective action. The landlord was also aware of several repair jobs that were raised for the bathroom and kitchen before the start of the resident’s stage 1 complaint, which added to the urgency of a renewal. The failure to provide a date for the renewal and lack of communication, or payment of the compensation awarded for this, was likely to have caused the resident inconvenience and frustration amounting to maladministration.
  8. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to apologise to and give the resident a timescale for it to add her kitchen, bathroom, and window renewal works to its investment team’s plan. It should then regularly update her on its expected schedule for the works to begin until it can provide her with a start date for them. The landlord has been further ordered to arrange a survey of the resident’s property to confirm whether there are any outstanding temporary kitchen, bathroom, or window repairs it can complete in the meantime until these can be renewed. It has also been ordered to pay her the £650 compensation it awarded in its stage 2 response for the time, trouble, and inconvenience she experienced, and an additional £450 compensation for the effect of its subsequent handling of the renewal works to the kitchen, bathroom, and windows. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for failures that had a significant effect on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. New complaints are to be logged within 5 working days as a stage 1 complaint and a response will be provided within 10 working days. If a complaint is escalated to stage 2, a response will be provided within 20 working days of the request being received.
  2. The resident first raised her concerns in a complaint webform on 4 June 2023. She contacted the landlord to complain about the condition of her bathroom, kitchen, and windows. Her complaint was acknowledged by the landlord at the time, however it appears from the evidence that no formal complaint process was started, and no follow up action was taken beyond the acknowledgment.
  3. By 30 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again via telephone regarding the same issues. On this occasion, the landlord logged the matter as a stage 1 complaint and began the formal complaint handling process. This was over 5 months or 128 working days after her initial complaint. This was unreasonable. A landlord is expected to recognise when a matter amounts to a complaint, particularly where there is repeated contact or a delay in service. The landlord therefore failed to log the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints process.
  4. The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 response on 26 January 2024, requesting that her complaint be escalated to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 25 April 2024, which was almost 3 months or 63 working days after the request was made. The landlord said there was a backlog due to structural changes and additional staff recruitment to deal with increased complaints. While the Service can understand that increased demand and changes in an organisation can cause delays, this should have been foreseen with adequate alternative measures put in place. This should also have at least communicated to the resident at the time, with regular progress updates until the landlord could respond to her.
  5. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s stage 2 escalation request was made on 12 March 2024. This was, in fact, almost 2 months or 32 working days after the escalation was made. There is no evidence on file to suggest why the landlord acknowledged this date. Despite this, the landlord then requested an extension in providing a stage 2 response and eventually provided a response on 13 June 2024. This was 4 and a half months or 96 working days after the escalation request was made. This delay was excessive and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to maintain regular communication with the resident with adequate timelines on its handling of the complaint.
  6. The handling of the resident’s complaint was unreasonable. The landlord failed to handle the complaint in accordance with its own policy. After the resident raised concerns, the landlord did not respond within the expected timeframe. This delay was likely to have caused additional frustration and uncertainty for the resident. The landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the issue earlier and to prevent the complaint from escalating further.
  7. The landlord agreed to award the resident £150 compensation for the lack of sufficient complaint handling. This would have been in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for failures that adversely affected the resident. As mentioned above, however, the landlord has also failed to make this payment despite being chased by the resident. This again represents a serious service failure.
  8. The landlord’s overall handling of the complaint amounts to maladministration. It failed to log the complaint in a timely manner and did not provide adequate updates or responses within its stated timescales. It also failed to follow through on agreed actions, including the payment of compensation. These failures demonstrate a lack of accountability and a poor understanding of the landlord’s responsibilities under the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  9. The total effect of these service failures was likely to have caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident and undermined her confidence in the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident the £150 compensation it awarded in its stage 2 response for the lack of sufficient complaint handling, and an additional £150 compensation for the effect of the further failures in its handling of the resident’s complaint identified by this investigation. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for failures that adversely affected the resident.
  10. The Ombudsman’s previous special investigation report recommended the landlord review its policies and practices in relation to repairs, record keeping, communication, complaints, and compensation. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the cases already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our special investigation’s previous recommendations, so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case that would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of renewal works to the kitchen, bathroom, and windows.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Provide the resident with a timescale for it to add her kitchen, bathroom, and window renewal works to its investment team’s plan, and regularly update her on its expected schedule for the works to begin until it can provide her with a start date for them.
    3. Arrange a survey of the resident’s property to confirm whether there are any outstanding temporary kitchen, bathroom, or window repairs it can complete in the meantime until these can be renewed.
    4. Pay the resident the £800 total compensation it awarded in its stage 2 response, which is broken down into:
      1. £650 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience she experienced.
      2. £150 for the lack of sufficient complaint handling.
    5. Pay the resident an additional £450 compensation for the effect of its subsequent handling of the renewal works to the kitchen, bathroom, and windows.
    6. Pay the resident an additional £150 compensation for the effect of the further failures in its handling of the resident’s complaint identified by this investigation.