Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Peabody Trust (202314575)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314575

Peabody Trust

30 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 handling of the resident’s:
    1. Request for a new bathroom.
    2. Complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The current landlord took over her tenancy management in March 2011.
  2. In March 2021 we issued a determination to the landlord about a previous complaint the resident made about her bathroom. We recommended it updated her about the bathroom renovation, including an action plan and expected timescales for any related works following its survey.
  3. Between January and June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and asked when it would replace her bathroom. She asked it to give her an expected timescale for its work following our recommendation and its survey in February 2023.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 July 2023. She was unhappy she had not heard from it about her bathroom renovation. She was also unhappy it had not updated her following our recommendation in March 2021.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 21 August 2023. It apologised for not updating her following the survey and said it did not have any planned works to her property for that financial year. It gave her advice how to report any bathroom repairs and offered her £75 compensation. This included £25 for its delay in responding to her complaint and £50 for poor communication following its survey.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 September 2023. She said she was unhappy the landlord had not renovated her bathroom during the time she had been living at the property. She asked when it would complete our previous recommendations and why her bathroom was not in its investment plan, despite it starting bathroom renovations on other properties. She also referred to 2 previous surveys it had done, which she said it appeared to have lost or not acted on.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 5 December 2023. It accepted it failed to update her, provide her with accurate information, and meet the recommendations set out in our previous determination. It confirmed her bathroom renovation was added for the current financial year in June 2023. It said it would complete the work by March 2024. It apologised and offered her £600 compensation. This included £400 for time and trouble and £200 for its complaint handling.
  8. The resident remained unhappy and asked us to investigate. She wanted her bathroom replaced and the landlord to explain why it failed to do so. She was unhappy with its communication and failure to progress the work unless she chased it.

Assessment and findings

Request for a new bathroom

  1. The landlord’s records show it completed a property survey in September 2021. The surveyor recommended planned works to the resident’s bathroom for 2022. However, it did not do this, and we cannot see it sent the resident any communication about this either. This was unreasonable and caused the resident time, trouble and inconvenience raising this matter again with the landlord in January 2023.
  2. Following contact with the resident in January 2023, the landlord arranged a stock condition survey on 23 February 2023. This was a reasonable response. The survey found the bathroom was 38 years old and needed replacing. It said the bath was not practical as it did not leave any floor space. There is no evidence it updated the resident following this survey or acted on its recommendations. This was unreasonable and its poor communication caused the resident time and trouble in contacting it again on 6 June 2023 for an update.
  3. Following contact from the resident on 6 June 2023, the landlord made enquiries but was unable to find its survey from February 2023. It found its earlier survey recommended replacing the resident’s bathroom in 2022. However, it said it had not budgeted for this. It is unreasonable the landlord did not follow up on the actions its surveyor recommended to ensure it completed the planned works in 2022. This was not in line with its policy for programmed repairs about bathroom replacements, which has a timescale for it to complete works within 60 calendar days.
  4. On 8 June 2023, it agreed to include the resident’s bathroom replacement in its 2023/2024 plan. However, it did not tell the resident which is further evidence of poor communication. This led to more time and trouble for her raising a complaint on 20 July 2023 in which she expressed her frustration at its lack of communication.
  5. As part of the landlord’s investigation into the resident’s complaint it attempted to find a copy of its survey from 23 February 2023. It also made enquiries as to whether it ever replaced her bathroom or if it was on any of its planned programs. In the landlord’s complaint response dated 21 August 2023, it told the resident it did not have any planned work to her property for the current financial year. It also said it had no record of completing a survey. This was inaccurate and is evidence of poor record keeping. It had completed 2 surveys prior to August 2023 and agreed to include the resident’s bathroom replacement in its 2023/2024 plan in June 2023.
  6. In her complaint escalation the resident told the landlord she was concerned it did not have a record of its previous surveys. She gave it the name of the surveyor who attended. Following its enquiries, it incorrectly told her the survey in February 2023 did not go ahead and it tried to arrange another one. This is likely to have confused the resident and affected her trust and confidence in the landlord’s handling of this matter.
  7. The resident also asked why she was being treating differently from her neighbours who had their bathrooms replaced. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it was unable to comment on renovations of other properties within her block. This was reasonable under data protection legislation.
  8. Following the resident’s complaint escalation, the landlord found its survey from February 2023. It also found it added her bathroom to the current year’s investment program in June 2023. In its stage 2 response on 5 December 2023, it told the resident this. It confirmed it would complete the work to her bathroom by March 2024, and it did. The resident said it did a great job overall with the bathroom renovation.
  9. In summary, there were delays and poor communication in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new bathroom. An initial survey report recommended it replaced it in 2022, but it did not. This was inappropriate and not in line with its policy for programmed repairs.
  10. The landlord acknowledged its poor communication in its stage 2 complaint response. It accepted it did not keep the resident updated despite its policies and guidelines confirming it should keep residents informed of the outcomes and actions from stock condition surveys.
  11. When we identify a failure, our role is to consider whether the redress the landlord offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether its offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  12. The landlord apologised for its failings in its stage 2 complaint response. It also said it learnt from the complaint and shared this learning with the relevant staff teams, which is positive. It offered the resident £400 for any time, trouble, and inconvenience its failings may have caused. It did not say whether this was in addition to the £50 it offered at stage 1 for its poor communication. For the purposes of our assessment, we considered it to be in addition.
  13. The landlord’s total offer of £450 was in line with its compensation policy for service failures where it made a low effort to resolve. Its compensation was also in line with our remedies guidance where there were failings that adversely affected the resident.  Prior to its replacement the bathroom was still usable, and although it was not practical, she was not without a working bathroom.
  14. In view of this, we find the landlord offered reasonable redress for its failures in the handling of the resident’s requests for a new bathroom. The resident told us she has not received the compensation. We have therefore recommended it pays the compensation directly to the resident. Our finding of reasonable redress is on the basis it pays her this compensation.

Complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. This says it must respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days of an escalation request. It must also acknowledge new complaints within 5 working days.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 July 2023. It acknowledged this as a stage 1 complaint on 24 July 2023 and said it would respond within 10 working days. This was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy timescale.
  3. On 8 August 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and extended its response deadline to 21 August 2023. Its policy allows for an extension of a further 10 working days if it requires further investigation. It says it should agree any extension over 20 working days with the resident. However, there is no evidence it did this, which is inappropriate. When it contacted her on 8 August 2023, it was already a day over its initial complaint response timescale which is poor communication.
  4. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 28 September 2023. Following our intervention, the landlord acknowledged this as a stage 2 complaint on 28 November 2023. Its delay in acknowledging and escalating her complaint was unreasonable. This caused delays and time and trouble to the resident contacting us to help.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 5 December 2023. This was 48 working days after her escalation request and 28 days over its complaints policy timescale.
  6. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failings and said it put measures in place from the lessons learnt. It offered £200 compensation but did not say if this was in addition to the £25 it offered at stage 1. Its offer was in line with its compensation policy where it failed to follow its complaint procedure or investigate a complaint correctly. Its offer is also in line with our remedies guidance for failings that adversely affected the resident. In view of this, we find the compensation offered was proportionate to the failings and it offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.
  7. The resident told us she has not accepted or received the compensation. We have recommended the landlord pay the compensation directly to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its failures in its handling of the resident’s request for a new bathroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its failures in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord:
    1. Pays the resident the £675 it offered her as part of its internal complaint’s procedure made up as follows:
      1. £75 offered at stage 1.
      2. £600 offered at stage 2.
  2. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis the landlord pays the above amount. It should pay this sum to her direct and not offset against arrears where they exist.