Peabody Trust (202331637)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331637

Peabody Trust

9 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. Handling of the resident’s reports of poor conduct by contractors.
   2. Handling of repairs.
   3. Response to the resident’s concerns about the presence of lead within the property.
   4. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a housing association. She lives in a house with her 2 adult children and her young child.
3. In April 2022, the resident reported several repairs needed at the property, including issues with doors and plasterwork, and treatment of areas with lead paint. In late October 2022, the landlord’s contractor began some of the work, including removing doors, architraves, and woodwork.
4. On 20 December 2022, the resident complained to the landlord about poor-quality work carried out in November. She said the repairs were not like-for-like, appointments were missed, and the contractor’s conduct was unprofessional and felt it amounted to bullying. She also raised concerns about lead-painted areas and was unhappy with an encapsulation job done on 7 December 2022. She requested that repairs be completed, lead materials removed, and all communication from the contractor be in writing.
5. On 5 January 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said a contractor supervisor would visit in mid-January to inspect the property and discuss the issues. It acknowledged the resident’s photos and promised to monitor the case and provide updates.
6. On 9 August 2023, the resident escalated the complaint. She was still dissatisfied with the repair quality and delays. She also reported poor communication from both the landlord and contractor, and said her technical questions remained unanswered. She wanted all outstanding work completed safely, including lead testing in other areas.
7. On 13 September 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response and upheld the complaint. It apologised for its complaint handling and delays in carrying out the work, poor communication, and substandard service from both the landlord and contractors. A specialist team was assigned to complete the work. The landlord agreed to test for lead paint on the lounge walls and remove it if found at dangerous levels. It estimated 2 more days of work were needed to finish the repairs. The resident was offered £1,960.40 compensation.
8. The resident came to the Ombudsman, stating the landlord had ignored her complaint about alleged bullying by the original contractor. She also remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to her concerns about lead and its handling of repairs and the complaint. By October 2024, the resident said most repairs were complete, but some remained outstanding, including lead testing in additional areas.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

9. The resident was concerned that possible lead exposure could affect the household’s health. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Because this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts, it will not be considered in this report.
10. In her complaint to us, the resident raised concerns that arose after the landlord’s final response of September 2023. These included issues following a survey carried out in February 2024, specifically the landlord not providing the surveyor’s report and a lack of communication. The landlord issued a stage 1 response regarding this in June 2024.
11. As these matters occurred after the conclusion of the original complaint process, they fall outside the scope of this investigation and will not be considered in this report. Should the resident wish to pursue new concerns, she should raise them as a separate complaint with the landlord, which she may then bring to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied with its final response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of poor conduct by contractors

12. On 29 and 30 November 2022, the resident told the landlord that the original contractors were intimidating and abusive, shouting over her on telephone calls. She said she felt pressured, unfairly blamed for delays, and believed the behaviour amounted to bullying.
13. In her complaint, the resident asked for the alleged bullying to be dealt with separately. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not comment on this aspect in its stage 1 response. However, in January 2023 she sought clarification on how this matter would be investigated, reiterated her concerns, and requested that the contractors not return to her home.
14. The landlord responded appropriately by arranging a joint inspection with the original contractor in February 2023, before reallocating the works to a new contractor in March 2023. This demonstrated that it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
15. The resident raised the bullying issue again on 11 May 2023. On 2 June 2023, the landlord asked her for specific examples,. On 29 June 2023, the resident said she wished to defer the matter, and on 7 July confirmed she would wait “until all the building works are over” before pursuing it further.
16. At that stage, it was reasonable for the landlord to not progress this matter. The resident did not raise it again in her August 2023 escalation request. She also did not appear to provide evidence when invited to do so in June and July 2023, although she raised concerns about the response of a landlord staff member, which she considered inappropriate.
17. In its final response, the landlord confirmed that the original contractor had been removed and the works reallocated. This was a suitable approach given the resident’s concerns. The landlord subsequently explained that the compensation awarded for time, trouble, and inconvenience encompassed issues with the contractor, including the alleged bullying.
18. The resident considered that the landlord had not formally investigated the bullying allegations. However, given her correspondence in June and July 2023, the landlord’s final response adequately addressed this matter. It had arranged a joint inspection in February 2023 and subsequently removed the contractor, citing poorly returning emails as a factor. This prevented further similar issues arising. Although it was unclear how much of the £1,000 compensation related specifically to the contractor’s behaviour, it is clear the landlord considered the detriment caused to the resident. Taken together, its actions and remedies adequately resolved the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

19. The landlord accepted there were failings in its handling of this matter, including poor service, delays from reassigning works, and missed appointments. Where failings are admitted, the Ombudsman considers whether the redress offered was sufficient to resolve the complaint in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: fairness, putting things right, and learning from outcomes.
20. There has been extensive correspondence between the resident and landlord about the repairs. This report does not examine in detail every specific issue raised. Instead, it considers the evidence as a whole in order to assess whether the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policies.
21. The resident first reported repairs in April 2022, including doors, architraves and woodwork. Some works were complicated by the need to remove lead paint from areas such as stairs and door frames. On 21 March 2023, the landlord confirmed a wide scope of works across multiple rooms, including lead paint removal from damaged archways on the first floor.
22. The resident objected to suggestions that delays were caused by her requests for “like for like” repairs and her preference for one worker in her home at a time. The landlord acknowledged her desire for matching fittings and said this would not always be feasible, and explained that the scale of the works required more than one person to be working at a time in some areas.
23. The landlord appropriately recognised that there were communication problems from it and its contractors, providing examples that she received a poor level of support from her case manager and that its contractor was “particularly poor at returning your emails”.
24. Between January and July 2023, the landlord generally replied to the resident’s emails in good time, although there were some delays, particularly in May 2023. At that time, we have seen the resident said she was unhappy with the new contractor’s communication and management, though she was generally satisfied with their standard of work.
25. The landlord accepted these failings, apologised, and in its final response awarded compensation amounts of £1,000 for time, trouble, and inconvenience due to poor repair handling. and £710.40 for loss of enjoyment of her home between April 2022 and September 2023. The landlord also committed to assign the outstanding work to a specialist team to monitor completion of the final repairs.
26. Further visits by its contractor took place on 31 October and 1 November 2023. A further visit was made on 23 November 2023, and, by December 2023, the specialist team had introduced themselves to the resident. In addition, the landlord made a referral for a surveyor to visit and identify unsatisfactory works, and the landlord proactively pursued this referral in January and February 2024. The survey was carried out in February 2024 and identified some outstanding repairs.
27. The resident has told that most repairs from her original complaint were completed by October 2024. While there appeared to be delays in the specialist team completing the repairs, some new issues were raised after the final response and further issues arose during works. These factors complicated the landlord’s task, although evidence shows it worked to respond to the resident’s reports and endeavoured to complete the repairs.
28. In summary, although the handling of repairs was poor and the resident’s frustration and distress were understandable, the landlord’s final response recognised its errors, apologised, and addressed its failings. It did this by providing a specialist team and surveyor to work with the resident to identify and deal with outstanding repairs, and by awarding compensation which reflected the impact of the delays and poor communication. This aligns with our remedies guidance which recommends financial awards from £1,000 where failings significantly affect the resident. These were appropriate and proportionate steps in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. Taken together they reasonably remedied the complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the presence of lead within the property

29. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord must maintain the property structure, including internal walls and door frames. This is in line with Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which requires homes to be kept fit for habitation.
30. Lead paint is a problem when it is disturbed or deteriorating. Intact paint is not usually dangerous, but any damage can cause serious health problems. The landlord has not provided any policy or procedure for dealing with lead paint. However, when a resident reports disturbed lead paint, basic good practice would be for a landlord to, at a minimum, inspect the area, assess the risk, and take any necessary action promptly. Even without a formal policy, the landlord must show it took all reasonable steps to investigate the issue.
31. The resident complained about the quality of the contractor’s work, fearing it exposed lead paint. She requested more tests, citing safety concerns for the household. She said wider testing had originally been promised, but the landlord’s contractors had subsequently decided not to do so. She also referred to some of the paint flaking off.
32. In its September 2023 final complaint response the landlord said it would not usually undertake lead testing inside a home itself, which was something a resident would usually be responsible for. However, it acknowledged that a commitment to test had been made, and because of that it would test the paint in the lounge, and remove it if it was found to be of a dangerous level.
33. Given that lead paint in a home is a recognised as a health and safety risk – and a landlord responsibility – and that the resident’s concerns were linked to repair efforts it was undertaking, it is not clear why the landlord believed investigating such a concern fell primarily to the resident. Accordingly, that element of its complaint response was not reasonable.
34. Furthermore, the resident had explained she had concerns about wider areas of her home. The landlord did not explain why and how it concluded only the lounge area would be tested.
35. It is not apparent if and when the promised lounge room test was done, but in November 2023 the landlord confirmed the paint would be removed. It said no further lead testing would be done, and repeated this to the resident in January 2024. The level of risk posed by lead paint in a home would be at least partly based on its locations and condition. It is possible therefore that the landlord had assessed the situation and found no problems or that any issues had been appropriately mitigated against.
36. However, insufficient evidence has been provided about the circumstances of the paint in this case to assess whether the landlord’s decision not to undertake wider testing was reasonable. In the absence of such evidence or explanations by the landlord for its decision, it cannot be said to have been reasonable. In the serious circumstances presented by this complaint, the landlord’s failings were significant.

The landlord’s complaint handling

37. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with repairs in a November 2022 email. We have also seen that on 9 December 2022 the resident specifically asked for a complaint number. However, the landlord did not record a complaint at this point.
38. By not doing so, it missed an opportunity to address her concerns. This led to time and trouble for the resident who repeated her complaint on 20 December 2022. The landlord acknowledged her escalation request of 9 August 2023 outside its aim of 5 working days. It then issued its stage 2 response on 13 September 2023 – 25 working days after her escalation request. This was again outside its policy timescales.
39. Nevertheless, the landlord’s final response appropriately recognised that its stage 1 response lacked detail and that it had not robustly investigated all the issues raised by the resident. It also recognised there were delays in issuing its responses. While the landlord’s approach was contrary to its usual procedure, it apologised for this, identified learning, and made an offer of £250 compensation in recognition. This was fair and proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident.

Determination

40. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of poor conduct by contractors.
    2. Repairs.
    3. The complaint.
41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the presence of lead within the property.

Orders

42. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident a £400 for the failings identified in responding to her concerns about the presence of lead within the property.
43. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence showing how it has satisfied itself that there is no lead paint risk in the resident’s home, or that any potential risk has been appropriately addressed. This evidence must refer to relevant standards and guidelines and provide clear explanations for the landlord’s conclusions. It must also be shared with the resident.
44. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman within the timescales above to confirm that it has complied with these orders.