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

Take part in the consultation

Peabody Trust (202316882)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316882

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. Door repairs.
    2. Reimbursement request for heating costs.
    3. Complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a first floor flat. The resident is disabled and lives alone.
  2. The resident reported issues with his external front door and balcony door to the landlord in March 2023. He said the balcony door had a gap which was letting in a draught and the front door frame was damaged. The landlord attempted to contact him in April and May 2023, but it closed the repair in June 2023 because he did not respond. He reported his concerns again about the external doors in August 2023 and November 2023.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord in August 2023 about the outstanding door repairs and its communication. He asked it to return his front door to the automatic remote-controlled door, which he had previously. He also requested reimbursement of increased heating costs due to draughts from a gap in the balcony door.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 24 August 2023. It found no failings in its service. It said it booked a front door repair for 5 April 2023 but there was no answer when it attended. It noted he said he was going into hospital, and he would re-book an appointment. It said it wrote to him on 26 May 2023 asking him to re book, but it received no response. It reminded him that he must make himself available for repairs. It said it had raised a new repair and would be in contact. It asked him for supporting evidence from his energy supplier to consider reimbursing his heating costs.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 6 October 2023. He was unhappy the door repairs remained outstanding and said the landlord did not adapt his house considering his disability. He also later reported issues with his living room door.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 22 January 2024. It confirmed the findings from its surveyor’s report. It said it previously changed the front door to a manual door, following damage from police forcing entry. It said it needed further repairs to modify it back to an automatic connection. It found the living room door had no handle or latch and said it would arrange an inspection to address these issues. It said it fitted a new balcony door on 6 November 2023, but it recognised he found it hard to open and close. It advised him to contact his local authority for an occupational therapist (‘OT’) assessment. It also restated its previous advice for him to provide evidence of increased heating costs for it to consider reimbursement.
  7. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it acknowledged its repair handling delays. It apologised and offered the resident a total of £1,100 compensation. This included £250 for its complaint handling, and £850 for any time, trouble, and inconvenience its repair handling may have caused the resident.
  8. The resident remained unhappy and asked us to investigate. He said to put matters right the landlord should complete the outstanding repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on his health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We cannot decide causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. However, we can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident. If the resident wants to pursue a personal injury claim, he may wish to seek independent legal advice.
  2. In his correspondence to us, the resident raised matters that have not been through the landlord’s internal complaint process. This investigation looks at matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 22 January 2024 in keeping with the Scheme. If the issues are outstanding the resident should report them to the landlord and if necessary, raise a new complaint. If he remained unhappy with its final complaint response, he could ask us to investigate. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction before our involvement.

Door repairs

  1. This investigation looks at the landlord’s handling of the front door, balcony door and living room door repairs overall but we have referred to the different repairs as subheadings for ease. We have referred to the living room door as ‘internal’ door and the front and balcony door as ‘external’ doors.

Internal door repairs

  1. The resident reported a living room door repair as part of his complaint escalation in December 2023. The landlord wrote to him on 22 December 2023 acknowledging this and said it would include it in a planned inspection, which was reasonable.
  2. The inspection recommended replacing the door handle and the landlord raised the repair for this on 18 January 2024. In its stage 2 complaint response on 22 January 2023, it apologised to the resident for not advancing this repair. It cancelled the repair a day later because internal doors were the resident’s responsibility. This was reasonable as the tenancy agreement says internal doors, door handles and latches were the resident’s responsibility. However, we have not seen any further communication it had with the resident explaining why it cancelled the repair, which is poor communication. It would have been reasonable for it to have told the resident this repair was his responsibility when he first reported it so he could have done something sooner about it himself.

External door repairs

  1. The resident had an OT assessment in October 2022. It recommended the landlord reinstall the automatic front door because the resident found it difficult to open the manual door and use his wheelchair at the same time. The landlord failed to act on this recommendation until after the resident complained. This was unreasonable because it knew there was a risk of injury from the information in the OT assessment.
  2. On 31 March 2023, the resident reported his plastic front door frame was damaged. The report also said the balcony door was misaligned which caused a draught. The landlord attempted to repair the doors on 5 April 2023, within its repairs policy timescale. This says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days. However, the landlord recorded it had not been able to access the flat.
  3. On 20 April 2023, the resident told the landlord he was going into hospital. He said he would re-book an appointment for the door repairs when he returned home. He also told the landlord his front door glass panel was broken and needed securing prior to going into hospital. The landlord attended within 24 hours to make it safe, and it completed the glass repair on 24 April 2023. This was appropriate and in keeping with its emergency repair timescales.
  4. On 26 May 2023, the landlord asked the resident to book a repair appointment for the outstanding front door and balcony door repairs. He did not respond, so it closed the repair on 2 June 2023. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and outside of the property, including external doors. It would have been reasonable for it to be proactive and attempted further contact to repair the external doors. However, we have not seen evidence it did.
  5. On 21 August 2023, the resident reported the balcony door repair again. The landlord attended on 14 September 2023 and raised works to install a new door. It installed a new balcony door on 26 October 2023. This was reasonable and in line with its 60 calendar days policy timescale for specialist works.
  6. However, the landlords repair records about the balcony door installation are inconsistent. The landlord’s records say it booked an appointment to install a new balcony door on 19 October 2023. The records say it completed the installation on 26 October 2023, but its stage 2 complaint response said it fitted the balcony door on 6 November 2023.There is a further record of a new balcony door repair dated 28 December 2023. The inconsistency in its repair records demonstrates poor record keeping.
  7. On 2 November 2023, the resident reported a fault to the locking mechanism on his front door. The landlordrecordedthis as an emergency but did not attend within its emergency repair policy timescale. In its stage 2 complaint response it said it incorrectly assigned this repair. This was a failing which given the nature of the issue,was likely to cause distress, time, and trouble to the resident.
  8. The resident reported the front door lock repair to the landlord again on 14 November 2023. The landlord responded to his report on the same day in keeping with its repairs policy. This was appropriate in recognition of the security concerns. It recorded the resident needed an automatic door closer and a remote fob, but it is not clear what further action it took. This is further evidence of poor record keeping.
  9. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the doors which was reasonable to assess the issues and agree an action plan. It is not clear when the surveyor inspected the property. It found the balcony door was working correctly but the resident had difficulty opening and closing it. The landlord did not advise the resident to request an OT assessment until it sent its stage 2 response. While this advice was reasonable, it would have been better if it sent it sooner given it was aware of the difficulty the resident had using the door. It was also aware the resident struggles to write or type due to his disability and medication. In view of this, it would have been reasonable for it to have assisted and referred him for an OT assessment. We have therefore recommended it considers referring the resident to occupational health.
  10. The surveyor also found the landlord previously replaced the front door from an auto opening door to a manual door following damage. It said the auto opening equipment was still present and recommended it reconfigured the door to return it to auto opening. In its stage 2 response the landlord told the resident it arranged this and would be in contact. However, it gave no timescales.
  11. There were delays in the landlord’s handling of door repairs and it did not keep the resident sufficiently updated. Its repair records were poor, it did not accurately record the work it completed or whether it did so within its policy timescales. When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake happening again.
  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 £850 for any time, trouble, and inconvenience its failings may have caused. This offer was in line with its compensation policy which says it may offer compensation where a resident experiences delays or it fails to meet its published guidelines. Its compensation was also in line with our remedies guidance where there were failings which adversely affected the resident. In view of this, we find the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s door repairs.
  13. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord told the resident it had arranged the work to his front door, and it would be in contact. It would have been good practice for it to give a timescale so that he was clear on what to expect. It confirmed to us it has since completed the work but has not provided us evidence of when it did, or the communication it had with the resident about it following its stage 2 response.
  14. We also asked the landlord for details of any vulnerabilities it holds for the resident. It said it had none recorded. However, throughout its repair records it refers to himas disabled and vulnerable. In view of this, we have made a recommendationit contacts the resident to confirm and accurately record hisdisabilities andvulnerabilities. It should also consider what, if any, reasonable adjustments the resident needs and whether it should complete a vulnerability assessment.

Reimbursement request for heating costs

  1. The resident reported a gap in a misaligned balcony door caused draughtsthat increased his energy bills. He asked the landlord to reimburse him for these costs in his complaint. When investigating the complaint,the landlordasked the resident for evidence of the increased heating costs. It was reasonable for the landlord to request this information for it to accurately consider reimbursement.
  2. We have not seen any evidence the resident provided the requested informationto support his heating reimbursement requests before the landlord sent its final complaint response. It requested he provide this information again. It was fair for the landlord to request this informationas further indication it would review any increase in heating costs and consider reimbursement. This was in keeping with its compensation policy which says it may provide compensation if a resident has incurred additional costs because of any service failure. Taking all matters into account there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of heating costs.

Complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. This says it must respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days of an escalation request. If it requires further investigation, it says it will contact the resident to confirm an estimated time, which should not exceed a further 10 working days. It must also acknowledge new complaints within 5 working days.
  2. We complained to the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 8 August 2023. It acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 10 August 2023 and said it would respond within 10 working days. It sent its stage 1 response on 24 August 2023 in line with its complaints policy timescale.
  3. The resident escalated his complaint on 6 October 2023. However, the landlord did not acknowledge this until 15 December 2023, following our intervention. This was not in keeping with its complaint policy. It recognised its failure to escalate the complaint caused a delay arranging a survey inspection.
  4. The landlord extended its complaint response time to 15 January 2024 in correspondence it sent to the resident on 22 December 2023. However, it sent its stage 2 response on 22 January 2024. This was inappropriate and not in line with its complaints policy timescale nor the extension it said it agreed.
  5. The landlord’s complaint response was inaccurate and contained discrepancies. In its stage 2 response, it said the resident first reported an issue with the front door on 31 March 2023 and the balcony door on 21 August 2023. However, the repair records refer to a report of the balcony door issues on 31 March 2023. It also referred to fitting a new balcony door on 6 November 2023, but this contradicts its repairs log. It dated both its stage 2 letter and date of the survey as 2023 instead of 2024. This is evidence of poor record keeping and communication.
  6. 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.
  7. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged its complaint handling delays. It also said it shared lessons learnt and implemented improvements in its complaint handling. It offered the resident £250 compensation for its complaint handling failings.
  8. The compensation award is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there were failingsthat adversely affected the resident. It was also proportionate to the distress and inconvenience the landlord’s failures may have caused him.
  9. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress which resolves the complaint handling failings satisfactorily. Its actions to address what went wrong were proportionate to the impact its failures had on the resident. In view of this, we find the landlord offered reasonable redress for its failures in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s door repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reimbursement request for heating costs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord:
    1. Contacts the resident to confirm and accurately record his disabilities and vulnerabilities. It should also consider what, if any, reasonable adjustments the resident needs and whether it should complete a vulnerability assessment.
    2. Refers the resident to occupational health.