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 (202443795)

Back to Top

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202443795

Peabody Trust

29 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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s request for a repair to his taps, and later adaptation request.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. His tenancy started in 2019 and he is registered as disabled which the landlord is aware of. He has arthritis and a skin condition.
  2. The landlord’s repair records indicate that the resident began to report issues with his kitchen and bathroom sink taps as early as February 2024. On 25 May 2024, the resident reported that contractors visited his property that morning. He had requested afternoon appointments only due to his medical conditions and said he had asked for a repair to his kitchen and bathroom taps but did not have a reference number. He said the contractors looked underneath his sink and went to their van but never came back. He wanted the landlord to investigate the contractors for their rude behaviour and why he was not made aware of the appointment in advance. He wanted compensation for the distress caused, his time, and the impact on his health conditions.
  3. On 30 May 2024, the landlord contacted the resident and explained that the contractors reported that they left due to him becoming threatening and abusive. It asked him to contact it to rebook the appointment and request an afternoon appointment.
  4. The resident then asked the landlord to raise the matter as a complaint as he was unhappy that the contractors turned up with no appointment and he felt it was discriminatory as they continued to do this. He denied being abusive to the contractors and did not feel he should need to rebook the appointment. He asked the landlord to book an afternoon appointment.
  5. The landlord raised a work order on 28 June 2024 but cancelled this as it noted the resident wanted it to replace the sink taps with lever taps due to health reasons, and it needed an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment to do so.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 10 July 2024 and said it would respond by 23 July 2024. The resident also raised concern that he did not need an OT assessment and the landlord was discriminating against him.
  7. In its stage 1 complaint response on 25 July 2024, the landlord:
    1. Found that the current kitchen taps were working correctly, but the resident had asked for new lever taps due to his medical conditions. It said it would not replace the taps if it could repair them in line with its repair policy.
    2. Said it would not be installing new single lever taps in the kitchen and bathroom but the resident could either ask for permission to replace the taps himself as an improvement, or apply on medical grounds under its aids and adaptations policy.
    3. Said he would need to contact Social Services as any initial works would be completed by the local authority after an OT inspection. It advised that requests for a minor adaptation would need to be supported by a letter from a medical practitioner. It said it would only accept requests for major adaptations where an OT had assessed the request. It would also usually need the resident to apply for a Disabled Facilities Grant to cover the cost. It said that, in this instance, he should contact its aids and adaptations team who could provide clarity.
    4. Apologised for the confusion over the appointment time slots and appreciated his frustration given he had requested morning appointments. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience, it offered £230 compensation. This was £30 for the time and trouble due to the appointment time errors, and £200 for the impact on him due to the stress of the delayed repairs and the impact on his mental health.
  8. The resident responded on 25 July 2024 and explained that due to his arthritis it was difficult for him to use separate taps. This had caused pain when brushing his teeth or washing dishes as the water was too hot. He said this had been ongoing since 2019 and he would call and also contact OT. He was unhappy with the compensation offered due to the trauma he experienced. He felt the landlord ignored the Equality Act 2010 and the law when offering this and asked it to pay £1,500 to £2,000.
  9. Between 25 and 30 July 2024, the landlord responded and confirmed that, once it had the right permission and guidance for his requirements, it would be able to assist with the correct tap adaptation. It said it was not able to increase the compensation to the amount he requested and he could escalate the complaint if he did not want to accept the offer.
  10. The resident advised he was unhappy with the offer, but provided his bank details. He also asked it to escalate the complaint as he did not feel the compensation was in line with what the government stated it should pay. He added that the tap issue had been ongoing since 2019 and had made his health worse, explaining the difficulty he had using separate taps.
  11. In its stage 2 complaint response on 9 October 2024, the landlord:
    1. Recognised the challenges the resident faced due to his long term arthritis and the implications this had. It said it would not increase the compensation to his desired amount. It explained that the Equality Act 2010 required it to make reasonable adjustments to its service for those with disabilities. The Act did not say it needed to offer a certain level of compensation. It was satisfied that the measures it offered aligned with the Act.
    2. Recognised that he experienced emotional distress and physical pain due to the ongoing issue and regretted any discomfort or inconvenience caused. It explained that its complaint process investigated service related concerns but compensation for personal injury would need to form part of a personal injury claim. It provided contact details for its insurance team.
    3. Explained the changes it was making to its repairs service and how it believed this would provide a more efficient service. It also recognised delays in its handling of the complaint which caused additional stress and inconvenience.
    4. Offered £350 compensation, made up of £150 for delays in its handling of the complaint at both stages, and £200 for the stress and inconvenience caused due to delays and a lack of update.

Events following the complaint

  1. Following the complaint, the resident continued to pursue his concerns about the taps and that the landlord had not paid the compensation at stage 1 or stage 2. He also pursued his concerns via his MP in December 2024. On 14 February 2025, the landlord increased its offer of compensation by £100 in view of the delay in responding to him. It said it previously paid £230 on 5 August 2024 and it would process an additional payment of £220.
  2. The landlord has explained that it changed both taps to lever taps at the resident’s request in March 2025. The resident provided a letter from OT dated 18 March 2025 which outlined the difficulty he had in using single taps safely and recommended appropriate tap adaptations.
  3. The landlord subsequently found that the bank details the resident provided were incorrect and arranged to process the payment in May 2025.
  4. In his communication with us in August 2025, the resident said that the landlord had not changed the taps despite an OT recommendation to do so, and to install tiles behind his cooker in March 2025. He added that it had not paid the compensation as promised.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In his communication with us and the landlord, the resident has referenced how the situation impacted his health. While we do not doubt his comments, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The resident also raised concerns about a lack of tiles behind his cooker, separate issues related to ASB, and a lack of response from the landlord’s insurer following a previous personal injury claim. These matters did not form part of the complaint we are considering and do not form part of this investigation. The resident may wish to progress any relevant complaints with the landlord in the first instance, or refer these matters to us to investigate separately.

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to taps. The repairs policy confirms that it aims to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
  2. The landlord’s aids and adaptation policy says that installing lever taps or adaptations under £2,000 would be a minor adaptation. Where relevant, it would need appropriate supporting evidence such as a letter from a medical practitioner for minor adaptations. Its website confirms that it would arrange for a repairs surveyor to visit who would support a resident in completing any applications and it would need to approve the work. If the adaptation would cost more than £2,000, it is considered a major adaptation which would require an OT referral and may require the resident to apply to the local authority for a Disabled Facilities Grant to fund the work.
  3. Its policy further states that it would not refuse an adaptation without good reason. If it was not possible to physically alter the property in the required way, it would work with the resident and their OT to consider alternative options.
  4. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1, it aimed to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and respond within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to acknowledge and respond to the complaint within 25 working days.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a repair to his taps, and later adaptation request

  1. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident initially raised a repair for his kitchen taps in February 2024. It also raised further jobs related to the taps in April 2024, and May 2024. We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord addressed the earlier repairs and the first visit we are aware of was on 22 May 2024, a significant time after the initial report. It remains unclear what the reasons for this delay was. The job description for the visit indicates that the resident required it to replace the kitchen and sink taps with lever taps due to his disabilities.
  2. Following the visit on 22 May 2024, the resident said he was unhappy that the operatives had turned up without notice in the morning when he had requested afternoon appointments, and returned to their van and left. It is unclear when the resident first requested afternoon appointments as a reasonable adjustment. The landlord acted reasonably within its complaint responses by apologising to him for the appointment confusion. While it incorrectly referred to him wanting “morning” appointments within its stage 1 complaint response in error, it has shown that it has a flag on his account to indicate that he only wants afternoon appointments moving forward which is appropriate in the circumstances.
  3. On 30 May 2024, the landlord explained that the operatives had left the property as the resident became threatening. While we cannot comment on  what happened on the day due to a lack of clear evidence, it was reasonable for the landlord to confirm how he could rebook the appointment at the time. It is of concern that, despite being aware that the resident wanted it to change the taps due to his disability, the landlord did not explain its position regarding adaptations from the outset to prevent any delay.
  4. Despite the resident raising additional repairs in June and July 2024 for his taps, these were cancelled due to the landlord believing that it needed an OT referral. We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord clearly explained to the resident why these jobs were cancelled at the time. We have not seen that it attempted to explain its position to him until around 24 July 2024 via phone, almost 2 months after the failed appointment. This was a significant time later and it ultimately had the opportunity to act sooner.
  5. The landlord acted reasonably within its stage 1 complaint response by recognising the distress and inconvenience caused by the confusion over appointment slots and the delayed repairs. Overall, its offer of £230 compensation went some way to recognise the impact on the resident at the time.
  6. The landlord is not obliged to change the taps at the resident’s request and only has to replace items such as taps if they are beyond repair. However, it does have an obligation under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments to ensure disabled residents are not disadvantaged. It is reasonable for the landlord to ask for evidence to support a request for an adaptation. This is both to show what adaptation would be suitable for the resident’s needs, and to make sure the adaptation would not pose any further risk to a disabled resident.
  7. The landlord provided information about adaptations within its stage 1 response. However, it did not take suitable ownership over the matter or provide a resolution. It would have been appropriate for it to have gained more detail about the adaptation the resident felt he needed and spoken to its adaptation team on his behalf so that it could provide relevant advice. It was unreasonable, given the length of time that had passed, that it put the onus on him to contact its adaptation team for clarity and did not seek to support him more fully.
  8. In addition, at the time, the landlord understood that the resident wanted “lever taps”, which would fall under a minor adaptation under its own policy. As such, while it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to provide supporting evidence from a medical practitioner, we have not seen evidence to show that a formal OT assessment would have been required in line with its policy. OT assessments can take time to arrange, and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have engaged more fully with the request to progress the adaptation, especially given the impact the resident said this was having on his medical conditions.
  9. It is evident that there was some misunderstanding about the adaptation the resident had requested. We have not seen evidence to show the resident’s initial request. However, the landlord understood that he had asked for “lever taps” at least as early as May 2024. However, in his communication on 25 July 2024, he specifically said that he struggled with separate taps, and we have not seen evidence to show that the landlord engaged with his specific concern at any stage. We note that the repair raised in April 2024 indicated that the taps did not mix hot and cold water. The landlord may have had the opportunity to identify that the resident wanted “mixer” taps at an earlier stage.
  10. The landlord has explained that it replaced the taps with lever taps at the resident’s request in March 2025. We have not seen evidence to show that the resident provided supporting medical evidence prior to this which suggests that the landlord may have been able to complete this work sooner. However, it did not engage with his concern that he struggled with separate taps, and we have not seen any further evidence to show that it has taken steps to act in line with the OT letter on 18 March 2025 once it was aware that separate lever taps were not the correct adaptation.
  11. While the landlord took steps to recognise the delay, confusion, and inconvenience caused to the resident at stage 1, we have found service failure in its handling of the resident’s request. It could have done more at the time of the complaint to discuss the adaptation the resident felt he needed in order to provide clear information about whether this would be a minor or major adaptation, and what sort of information it would need to support it in completing the adaptation in a timely manner. This may also have resolved any misunderstanding in whether it was lever or mixer taps that had been requested.
  12. The landlord did not suitably engage with the resident’s request, provide clear information, or support him in progressing the adaptation in a timely manner given the impact he said the current taps were having on his medical conditions. It is also of concern that the landlord reduced the compensation for this element of the complaint to £200 at stage 2 without any clear explanation. We have included several orders below for the landlord to put this right. This includes an increased level of compensation in line with our remedies guidance. We have also included an order for the landlord to check whether the previous amounts were paid, and provide evidence of this in view of the resident’s concerns that he has not received previous payments.

 The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord has recognised that there were delays in its handling of the resident’s complaint. He asked it to raise a complaint on 30 May 2024 but we have not seen that it told him it was handling the complaint until 10 July 2024, 29 working days later. This was outside of its policy timescales and it did not update him appropriately. It sent its stage 1 complaint response on 25 July 2024, 40 working days after his request. This was outside of its policy timescale of 15 working days at stage 1.
  2. The resident said he was unhappy with the response and level of compensation on 25 July 2024. He needed to ask it to escalate the complaint on 30 July 2024. This was a relatively short timeframe, but it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have escalated the complaint to stage 2 of its process when he first said he was unhappy.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 9 October 2024, 51 working days after his escalation request. This was outside of its 25 working day timescale for handling stage 2 complaints.
  4. The landlord acted reasonably by explaining that there was a backlog and would likely be delays in its handling of the stage 2 complaint on 2 September 2024. It would have been appropriate for it to have explained this sooner in order to manage the resident’s expectations of when he would get a response.
  5. Overall, the landlord acted fairly by recognising the delays and the additional distress and inconvenience this caused the resident. Its offer of £150 compensation at the time of the complaint to put right the impact was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance (available on our website) for a failing that had an adverse impact on a resident.
  6. However, it is evident that the resident continued to pursue updates from the complaint handler about the compensation payment, and a delay in responding to him. In view of the lack of communication and delay, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer a further £100 compensation in February 2025 to recognise the impact on the resident. This amount is proportionate in recognition of the additional impact after the end of the complaints process.
  7. The resident has said that he has not received any compensation for this complaint from the landlord. However, we can see that it initially found that the bank details he had provided were incorrect which was outside of its control. In view of the resident’s position that it has not yet paid this, we have recommended that it checks it has paid this successfully.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for a repair to his taps, and later adaptation request.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation for its handling of the resident’s complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £350 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his request for it to replace his taps. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £230 made in its stage 1 complaint response. In view of the resident’s concerns that he did not receive this payment previously, it should check whether this was paid successfully and provide documentary evidence to confirm it has done so.
  3. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to inspect and check whether bathroom and kitchen taps have been changed to mixer taps. If not, it should assess the work needed to progress this adaptation, the expected cost and whether it would be a minor or major adaptation.
  4. Within 6 weeks, the landlord should write to the resident and explain:
    1. What work is needed to progress the adaptation and the timeframe in which it expects to be able to complete this where appropriate.
    2. If it is not currently able to progress the adaptation, it should confirm the reasons why, and whether it needs any further supporting documentation to do so.
  5. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance within these timeframes.

 Recommendations

  1. We recommend that:
    1. The landlord checks it has paid the resident £250 in recognition of its poor complaint handling and poor communication post complaint, if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis that this was paid. It should check it made this payment successfully.
    2. The landlord contacts the resident and provides an update on the status of any ongoing insurance claims.