Peabody Trust (202428118)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202428118

Peabody Trust

11 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports about leaks into her property.
2. Complaints handling.

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder of the property since December 2020. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a flat within a block of flats. The resident occupies the property with her partner. The resident was pregnant during the period of the complaint, which the landlord was aware of. The property was a new build, which was under warranty from the developer during the period of the complaint.
The resident has advised that shortly after moving into the property, she reported a leak coming through her patio doors. The resident has also advised that a neighbour reported a similar concern in November 2020. It is not disputed that some temporary repairs were initially completed, but that no permanent solution was agreed at this time.
The resident continued to report issues, and a surveyor attended in June 2023. The resident has advised that the surveyor confirmed the doors were not fit for purpose. However, it is not disputed that the landlord did not raise any works or provide any updates following this visit.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 18 April 2024 regarding the ongoing leaks. She also noted in May 2024 that she had had 15 visits to date from the landlord and developer with no action taken. She further noted operatives had recently attended to address the patio doors but had been misinformed that the issue was to do with her roof. She advised the roof was a separate issue which had already been addressed in February 2024 and expressed her concern about the landlord’s repair management.
On 21 May 2024, the resident chased an update on her complaint. The landlord replied on 17 June 2024 and advised it would respond by 19 June 2024; however, on 30 July 2024, the resident noted she was still yet to receive a response.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 1 August 2024, which included the following:
1. It apologised for the delay to its formal response.
2. Regarding the balcony doors, it advised that it considered this was first raised in May 2023. It acknowledged, however, that its surveyor had confirmed in June 2023 that they required replacement and that no action had taken place since, for which it apologised.
3. It further apologised for the confusion caused by the incorrect information being given to its operatives.
4. It acknowledged there had been a failure with its service delivery and offered £450 compensation. This was made up of:
  1. £200 for distress and inconvenience.
  2. £150 for time and trouble.
  3. £100 for poor complaints handling.
5. It noted it would feed back learning to its teams and that its repair team would contact her directly to arrange further repairs.
The resident escalated her complaint on the same date. She noted that the response had not addressed her concerns about excessive visits or the damage that had been caused to the property as a result of the leaks. Around this time, she also noted she was pregnant and expressed the impact the issues were having on her.
In September 2024, the resident reported her concerns to her local MP, who forwarded them to the landlord. The landlord subsequently provided a response noting the delays and reiterated it was taking steps to address the repairs.
The resident chased the landlord’s complaint response on 27 September 2024. She also noted that while a further inspection had been arranged, this had been cancelled twice at short notice.
Following a further request for an update, the landlord confirmed on 28 October 2024 that it had now logged the escalation and would provide a response within 20 working days. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction given that she had requested an escalation in August 2024.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 December 2024, which included the following:
1. It apologised for the delays to its response and for the overall lack of updates.
2. It further apologised for the inconvenience caused by its cancelled inspections.
3. It assured the resident that it had been investigating the issue despite its lack of communication. It advised that the issue had been identified as a latent defect, which was the developer’s responsibility to resolve.
4. It advised this may take up to 6 months to resolve and so advised a temporary fix would be put in place before then.
5. It increased its offer of compensation to £1,000. This was made up of:
  1. £750 for overall distress and inconvenience.
  2. £250 for complaints handling.
The resident subsequently made enquiries about the timeline and scope of works. On 21 January 2025, she reported that no temporary fix had taken place, despite the landlord’s assurances that the matter was considered urgent. The landlord responded that it was continuing to liaise with the developer and would keep her updated. In February 2025, it apologised again for the ongoing delays.
Between February and March 2025, it is not evident that the landlord provided any further updates. The resident was left to liaise with the developer directly to arrange the works. It is evident from these communications that the resident expressed concerns about the possible disruption caused by the works. However, the developer did not answer all of the resident’s questions, which caused her to have to expend time and trouble repeatedly chasing answers.
The resident has advised this service that the works were completed over a period of 1 week in March 2025, during which the doors were left completely removed for a day. She has advised that while the works appear to have solved the issue, there hasn’t been heavy rain to fully test the efficacy.

Assessment and findings

Leaks

It is not disputed that the landlord would usually have a repair responsibility for a leak into the property. However, as this was a new build property covered by a warranty, it is reasonable for the landlord to require the developer to resolve such issues as a latent defect.
Where an issue is identified, it is appropriate for a repair to be arranged within a reasonable period. The landlord’s repairs policy notes that non-urgent repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days. Where additional time is needed, such as where specialist parts or scaffolding is required, it may take up to 60 calendar days. The Ombudsman also understands that some level of delay caused by the need to liaise with the developer and also to address multiple properties, as was the case here, may require additional time. However, in such circumstances, it is reasonable for a landlord to provide a high level of communication to keep residents informed. Landlords should also consider whether any additional interim measures are needed.
In this case, it is not disputed the resident raised concerns following her move to the property, after which some temporary repairs were completed. It is not evident whether these were completed by the landlord or the developer. Nevertheless, the landlord should have robust systems in place so it can share accurate records of what action has been taken. Given that the resident reported repeated issues, it is also reasonable for a landlord to arrange follow-up inspections to ensure any works have been successful. It is not evident this occurred.
Following the further reports in or around May 2023, the landlord appropriately arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property. This inspection took place in June 2023, which was a reasonable timeframe in the circumstances. It is not disputed the surveyor identified that the doors were not fit for purpose. This raised the resident’s expectation that action would be taken to replace the doors. However, the landlord failed to raise any works or otherwise discuss liability with the developer. Nor did it provide any further updates to the resident. This was unreasonable and would have caused her distress.
The landlord explained that the surveyor had left the organisation and had not actioned the works. While this is an explanation for the failings, this is not an excuse. The landlord should have robust processes to account for staff turnover and sufficient record keeping practices to ensure outstanding actions are identified. The fact that this was missed points to a record keeping failure by the landlord.
Following the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord appropriately arranged for a further visit; however, its operatives were misinformed about the reason for the visit. This points to a further record keeping failure which caused distress and inconvenience for the resident, as she had to take time off work to accommodate the failed visit.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delays to the repairs and the impact this had caused. It also appropriately apologised for the confusion caused by the failed visits. However, it failed to provide a position on the resident’s reports that she had had 15 other visits without a permanent solution. This was its opportunity to either justify those visits or otherwise apologise for the inconvenience; however, it failed to address this, which was a further failing.
Given that the issue was ongoing, it was appropriate that it advised further action would be taken by its repairs team. However, it did not provide any timeframe for a further inspection. This would not have provided reassurance for the resident.
Despite its assurances that the matter was being taken seriously, there were 2 further failed appointments for the resident. She was also only given short notice of cancelled appointments. This again caused her frustration and inconvenience.
As noted above, where the landlord considers a matter to be the responsibility of the developer, it should ensure a high level of communication to keep the resident informed. The landlord later assured the resident that it had been working with the developer to resolve the issues; however, it failed to keep her informed despite multiple requests for updates.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord once again acknowledged and apologised for the delays, cancelled appointments, and poor communication. However, given that these same issues were identified in its stage 1 response, it is disappointing to note it failed to improve its service delivery.
Given that the issue was identified as a latent defect, it was appropriate that the landlord informed the resident of this and provided a timeframe for the repairs to be completed. Given the extended timeframe, it was also appropriate that it committed to a temporary fix. However, it did not provide a timeframe for the temporary works or details of what they included. Despite this assurance being made in December 2024, it is evident that by the end of January 2025, no action had been taken, despite the history of the complaint and the resident making the landlord aware of her vulnerabilities. This was unreasonable and a missed opportunity for the landlord to try to regain the trust of the resident.
Regarding the works to be completed by the developer, it is evident that the resident was left to correspond directly with them. The resident does not have a direct relationship with the developer, as this responsibility is ultimately between the landlord and the developer. While it may be reasonable for a resident to have discussions directly with the developer, this should have been clearly agreed with the landlord. The landlord should also continue to have oversight of the issues throughout. It is not evident that this was the case, which was not appropriate.
While the developer is not the subject of this investigation, it is evident that it did not correspond with the resident in an empathetic manner. This caused her additional distress. This could have been avoided had the landlord had more oversight of the repairs. However, the evidence shows that following the stage 2 response, it failed to provide any further meaningful updates. Given the previous failings it had identified, this pointed to a lack of ownership of the complaint and its resolution, which further eroded the landlord/tenant relationship.
As part of her complaint, the resident noted her property had been damaged by the leaks. While it may be reasonable for a landlord not to specifically provide a position on liability as part of its complaints process, it should nevertheless have acknowledged this concern and could have signposted her to her contents insurer or otherwise provided details of its own liability insurer. However, the landlord did not acknowledge this element of the complaint, which was a further failing. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide its insurer’s details should the resident wish to pursue a claim.
In both its stage 1 and responses, the landlord appropriately apologised for its failings and offered compensation. In total, it offered £750 for this element of the complaint. While it was positive that it offered some remedy for its failings, its offer was not proportionate in the circumstances. It is evident that the landlord should reasonably have been aware of the issues over a significant period. It should also have been aware of the number of visits and the lack of a confirmed resolution. There were also repeated failings with communication and oversight, along with poor record keeping that contributed to the delays and distress caused to the resident.
In the circumstances, a finding of maladministration has been made. An order for £1,900 has been made to reflect the impact caused to the resident. This is made up of £750 for the delays, £750 for the poor communication and oversight of the issues, and £400 for the inconvenience caused by failed appointments and the failure to raise appropriate actions following visits. This order replaces the landlord’s offer of £750.
Additionally, given the resident’s concerns about the efficacy of the repairs completed, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to ensure it has accurate records of the issues to date and to provide a single point of contact for the resident to oversee any necessary repairs should any further issues occur.

Complaints handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days. It will also acknowledge an escalation within 10 working days and respond within 20 working days.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 18 April 2024 through the landlord’s internal system. It is evident from the landlord’s internal notes that she reiterated she wished to make a formal complaint during a telephone call on 19 April 2024. However, it is not evident that the landlord formally acknowledged the complaint at this time.
The landlord’s policy notes it may request an extension for providing a response but will contact the resident prior to the deadline for its response in such instances. It is not evident the landlord made any such request, which led the resident to have to expend time and effort chasing a response. Despite the landlord’s subsequent assurances it would provide a response by 19 June 2024, it failed to do so, which led the resident to have to chase updates again.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that there had been a delay to its response, for which it apologised. It also offered £100 to reflect the impact of the delay, which was reasonable.
On 1 August 2024, the resident clearly articulated that she wanted her complaint to be escalated. The landlord responded, asking questions about the reason for the escalation request. It did not explain that it hadn’t accepted the complaint. If it did not consider that an escalation had been correctly raised, it would have been reasonable to have clarified this with the resident; however, it did not do so.
The resident subsequently chased a response in September 2024, and the landlord only confirmed on 28 October 2024 that it had accepted the escalation. Given the resident’s previous statements that she wanted an escalation, this delay was unreasonable.
In its October 2024 acknowledgement, the landlord advised it would provide its response within 20 working days. This would mean it needed to respond on 25 November 2024. However, it did not provide a response until 5 December 2024. Once again, it is not evident that it contacted the resident to request an extension.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord again apologised for the delays to its response and apologised for the impact caused. It increased its offer of compensation to £250 to reflect these failings.
In summary, there were repeated unreasonable delays to the landlord’s complaint responses, which caused the resident to have to expend time and trouble chasing updates and delayed the overall resolution to her complaint. While it is disappointing that the landlord failed to learn from its failings at stage 1, it appropriately acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused, apologised, and offered compensation to put things right.
The overall offer of £250 was proportionate to the delay and consistent with this service’s remedies guidance for instances where a landlord’s failings have negatively impacted the resident. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress has been made in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint regarding the resident’s reports about leaks into her property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £1,900 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings relating to the patio doors.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £750. The ordered amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to provide the resident with its liability insurer’s details.

Recommendations

The landlord is to reiterate its offer of £250 in relation to its complaints handling, if this is yet to have been accepted.
The landlord to ensure it has accurate records of the issues to date. Should any further issues occur, it should provide a single point of contact for the resident, to oversee any necessary repairs.