From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Peabody Trust (202420640)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420640

Peabody Trust

8 September 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s dissatisfaction about a service charge increase.
    2. Handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak.
    3. Complaint handling.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of a 2-bedroom top-floor flat. The tenancy for the new build property started in November 2021. The landlord, a housing association, has no health vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, the resident disclosed her cancer diagnosis to the landlord in 2022. She also referred to other health vulnerabilities.
  2. The landlord completed a phased merger between April 2022 to April 2023.
  3. On 20 December 2021 the resident informed the landlord and the developer of defects to the property. Her email included photographs of her balcony cupboard, which housed her boiler. These images showed water penetrating the cupboard wall and ceiling, believed to be coming from the building’s roof. The resident chased the landlord and developer throughout 2022 to 2024. She expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of a resolution and the landlord’s poor communication.
  4. On or around 9 April 2024 the resident complained about the landlord’s failure to resolve the leak for more than 2 years. She described the stress of chasing the repair during this time while receiving treatment for cancer. The resident also expressed dissatisfaction with a rent and service charge increase. She considered it unreasonable given the landlord’s failure to resolve the property defects with the developer. The resident wanted the roof repaired, compensation, and justification for the increased service charges.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 18 April 2024. However, she needed to chase the landlord and developer for updates. She sought help from her MP in August 2024 as the repair remained outstanding. And she also asked for our assistance in November 2024 as the landlord had not provided a stage 1 complaint response.
  6. The landlord sent another stage 1 acknowledgement to the resident on 5 November 2024. And it provided a stage 1 response on 27 November 2024. The landlord apologised and accepted its poor communication and monitoring had caused disruption to her. It offered the resident £400 compensation. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the repair delay. And £100 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling.
  7. On 6 December 2024 the resident escalated her complaint as remedial repairs did not work. The resident reminded the landlord that she had first reported the roof leak in December 2021, and it had been ongoing since. She also reminded the landlord her boiler had required repeat repairs due to the leak in the cupboard. The resident considered the landlord should compensate her for distress, inconvenience, and for time off work for recurring repair appointments.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 13 March 2025. And sent its stage 2 response on 1 April 2025. The landlord apologised for not providing a lasting roof repair. It scheduled trace surveys and further repairs and increased its offer of compensation to £1,125. Made up of £750 for distress and inconvenience. And £375 for the resident’s time and trouble. The resident did not accept the landlord’s offer.
  9. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. During a telephone call with us on 3 September 2025, the resident said remedial repairs remained unsuccessful and the leak ongoing. Therefore, she had experienced a roof leak for almost 4 years. She considered the landlord’s offer of compensation unreasonable.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme governs what we can and cannot consider and what is within our jurisdiction. When a resident brings a complaint to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we cannot investigate a complaint.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. Response to the resident’s dissatisfaction regarding a service charge increase.
  3. Paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
  4. Any dissatisfaction regarding the reasonableness, liability, or the methodology used to calculate service charge costs requires a decision by a court or tribunal service. Therefore, this matter falls outside of our jurisdiction and may be within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident may also wish to discuss the matter further with the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE). However, we will consider how the landlord acknowledged the resident’s service charge point within its complaint handling.

Scope of investigation

  1. Within the resident’s correspondence she said she had suffered stress and anxiety due to the landlord’s delays to resolve the roof leak. This affected other diagnosed health conditions. She also described a loss of earnings due to time off work for reoccurring repair appointments over almost 4 years.
  2. We are unable to say what caused an illness or injury or prove legal liability. Any detrimental effect on a resident’s health or finances requires a decision by a court or through an insurance claim. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages.

Roof leak

  1. The lease agreement states the landlord’s repair responsibilities. This includes the maintenance, repair, and or renewal of the building’s roof.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days. And major repairs within 60 calendar days.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy is silent on the response time to complete defect repairs to new build homes. However, we would expect a landlord to respond and resolve matters directly, or with its developer within a reasonable time.
  4. The evidence shows the resident reported a leak on 20 December 2021. The landlord does not dispute this.
  5. While the area affected is an external cupboard, the lease agreement shows it is part of the curtilage of the property. Therefore, the landlord should have provided a remedy to the structural defect affecting the cupboard within its published repair times.
  6. By not doing so, the resident experienced restricted access to her storage space and intermittent faults with her boiler. This demonstrates the landlord failed to meet its repair obligations as outlined in the lease agreement and its repair policy.
  7. The evidence also shows the resident chased the landlord and the developer prior to, and after the landlord’s merger in April 2022. She continued throughout until her formal complaint in April 2024. Her need to do this demonstrates poor communication and ineffective monitoring by the landlord.
  8. In July 2022 the resident chased the landlord as the leak remained. The landlord acknowledged it had closed her defect repair by mistake. While it apologised, this demonstrates poor record keeping and monitoring by the landlord. This caused the resident further inconvenience trying to progress matters.
  9. While the resident does not dispute some remedial work took place during late 2022, it was unsuccessful. Furthermore, the resident experienced boiler faults which the landlord’s plumber attributed to the leak. Given the resident had informed the landlord of her cancer diagnosis, its failure to remedy the leak did not demonstrate it giving due regard to her vulnerable circumstances.
  10. Between 14 January 2022 to 6 June 2025, the landlord’s developer said it had attended the resident’s property approximately 28 times. However, it was not always clear from the records provided what took place to repair the leak. This demonstrates incomplete record keeping and poor monitoring of the developer’s actions by the landlord.
  11. In or around June 2024 the landlord’s wellbeing team contacted the resident following her request. The records show its team considered the cause of the resident’s distress as the “long outstanding repair.” Given the landlord’s own assessment of the effect on the resident, it is unclear why the repair continued to remain unresolved.
  12. In August 2024 evidence shows the resident sought help from her MP as the landlord had not achieved a lasting repair. This caused her further time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience trying to progress matters.
  13. There is evidence of other examples of poor communication, poor monitoring, and ineffective remedial repairs which caused the resident distress and inconvenience. These include:
    1. On 13 September 2024 the landlord’s own inspection confirmed its developer had completed roof repair work “poorly and failed.” Given the resident reported the leak on 20 December 2021, this demonstrates the landlord failed to achieve a permanent repair within a reasonable time.
    2. In October 2024 the developer informed the landlord it had completed repairs following a leak trace survey. However, it had not communicated this to the resident and considered further work necessary.
    3. In or around October 2024 the resident attended a residents meeting with the landlord to raise dissatisfaction with the lack of progress.
    4. In November 2024 the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates as communication remained poor. She also required further work to fix her boiler.
    5. In November 2024 the landlord’s internal records state the resident “is vulnerable” and there had been “no apparent action taken by the developer.” These records also show difficulties finding a team to take responsibility for the resident’s repair as the property remained in a defect warranty period.
    6. In January 2025 the resident contacted the landlord’s chief operating officer directly in hope of gaining a satisfactory response.
    7. In May 2025 leak trace surveys confirmed water ingress remained unresolved and strongly suggested failures in recent roof repairs.
  14. The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised to the resident for not completing the repair when first reported. Nor doing so within its publish repair response times. It increased its offer of compensation and arranged for its repair monitoring team to oversee the planned repairs in April 2025. Having made this promise, it is unclear why the landlord failed to achieve a lasting repair, causing the resident further distress and inconvenience.
  15. On 3 September 2025 the resident informed us the leak remains ongoing. This is a total of 1354 days since she first reported the defect on 20 December 2021. This further demonstrates the landlord’s failure to resolve the repair within a reasonable time.
  16. When there has been an admission of failure, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right. And whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our remedies guidance.
  17. Our determinations should also recognise the fact that the distress caused to an individual resident is unique to them. Not all residents will experience the same distress in response to the same instance of maladministration. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or because of a vulnerability (‘aggravating factors’). Consideration of any aggravating factors could justify an increased award to reflect the specific effect on the resident.
  18. In this case the resident has needed to chase the landlord and developer for an unreasonable amount of time, almost 4 years. This has included a change of contacts following a merger. She has disclosed health vulnerabilities and shown incredible patience believing the landlord and developer would resolve matters since December 2021.
  19. Based on our findings we find maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s leak. We may have made a finding of severe maladministration, but for the evidence that some work has, albeit unsuccessfully, taken place. We have considered this a mitigating factor.
  20. However, while the resident made her formal complaint in April 2025, it is fair and reasonable for us to consider the landlord’s failures to provide a remedy since December 2021. The resident put the landlord on notice and frequently expressed dissatisfaction. However, it repeatedly failed to demonstrate effective monitoring of her situation. Nor provided a lasting remedy through to September 2025.
  21. Given the significant delay, disruption, and aggravating factors, we do not consider the landlord’s offer of £750 proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation. Therefore, we order it to pay £1,400. This is consistent with our remedies guide when the circumstances of maladministration apply, and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It states that a resident can expect a complaint acknowledgement within 5 working days. It will provide a response within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. If it requires more time, this should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason. It will agree any extension with the resident in advance. This is appropriate and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The Code states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made. A resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for the landlord to treat it as such.
  3. The evidence shows the resident repeatedly informed the landlord of her “frustration” with its lack of action and poor communication from December 2021 and throughout 2022. Her correspondence informed the landlord of her cancer diagnosis, hospital treatment, and her vulnerabilities. Given this information, it is unclear why the landlord did not raise a complaint. It missed an opportunity to investigate the resident’s first expression of dissatisfaction. In doing so, it left the resident to manage matters with the developer and contractors without an appropriate level of support.
  4. The evidence shows the landlord sent its stage 1 and stage 2 acknowledgements late. Furthermore, it sent its stage 1 and stage 2 responses 149 and 54 working days late, respectively. This was not consistent with the expectations of the Code. And it caused the resident time and trouble pursuing matters with the landlord.
  5. The Code states that within a complaint acknowledgement, landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. The landlord’s stage 1 acknowledgement on 18 April 2024 did not do this.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged failings with its communication and monitoring of the resident’s case. It accepted it may have completed her repairs sooner if its records had been accurate. It apologised, offered compensation, communicated with the developer to arrange repairs, and arranged training for staff. The landlord said it would learn from the resident’s complaint.
  7. However, the landlord repeated its failure to meet expected timescales at stage 2. Therefore, it did not demonstrate any learning from its stage 1 investigation.
  8. The landlord’s complaints policy states there are things it will not deal with through its complaints process. This includes insurance claims and appeals. It was therefore consistent with its complaints policy for the landlord to offer the resident its liability insurance details if she wished to make a claim for any damage caused to personal possessions.
  9. The Code states that a landlord must respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint. It is therefore unclear why the landlord did not respond to her service charge questions at either stage of its complaint handling process. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge or respond to the resident was not appropriate.
  10. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will assess compensation based on a resident’s time and trouble pursuing a complaint. It sets sums of £50 to £400 based on the level of failure identified.
  11. The evidence shows multiple failures with the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord acknowledged this within its stage 2 response. It apologised and offered £375 compensation. This is consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy when there has been an extensive failure, causing a significant effect to the resident.
  12. Based on our findings, we find the landlord offered reasonable redress. We may have found maladministration but for the landlord’s efforts to acknowledge identified service failures and its steps to put things right at stage 2. The landlord’s offer of £375 compensation was consistent with our remedies guide where the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident.

Record keeping

  1. As written within this report, there has been evidence of poor record keeping. The landlord did not demonstrate the effective:
    1. Monitoring of its developer’s responsibility to remedy the resident’s reported defects.
    2. Transfer of the resident’s property details or reported defects following its merger in April 2023.
    3. Monitoring of its contractor’s performance to achieve completion of the necessary remedial work.
    4. Communication regarding planned work, delays, or how it would provide a lasting remedy for the recurring issues.
    5. Monitoring of the resident’s complaint.
  2. In or around June 2024, the landlord’s wellbeing team and delivery support colleagues could not locate any details regarding the resident’s repair. This demonstrates a gap in the landlord’s knowledge and information management (KIM) at the time of the resident’s complaint. This affected the landlord’s ability to locate the necessary records to provide updates to the resident.
  3. In July 2025 the resident chased the landlord as issues remained ongoing. There is evidence on 14 July 2025 where the landlord had allocated the resident’s case incorrectly. Therefore, it had not monitored the proposed repair works planned in April 2025.
  4. While we note the landlord completed a merger, without good KIM, a landlord is unable to deliver its services efficiently and effectively. It is imperative that records are accurate and maintained to keep both the property and the residents safe. The landlord did not show it effectively monitored the resident’s concerns. Nor that it considered the effects the reported situations were having on her. This was not appropriate and did nothing to foster a positive landlord and resident relationship.
  5. Based on the evidence and findings of this investigation, we find maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s dissatisfaction about a service charge increase, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress which resolved the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total sum of £1,400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak.
  2. Within 8 weeks the landlord must:
    1. Arrange or demonstrate to us that a suitably qualified person has completed a roof inspection and leak trace since the landlord’s most recent repair attempt.
    2. Provide the resident and us with the findings of the inspection report and a schedule to complete the recommended works.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord reoffers the resident £375 offered at stage 2 for the identified time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.