Peabody Trust (202420842)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420842

Peabody Trust

26 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of a leak from above and associated damp and mould.
2. The resident’s reports of mice in the property.
3. The resident’s Subject Access Request (SAR).
4. The associated complaints.

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom, first floor flat within a block. The resident has an assured tenancy which began in February 2005. The resident lives at the property with her adult son and the landlord has advised us that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or her son.
The landlord raised an order in February 2024 to investigate a leak affecting the living room ceiling in the property. The landlord’s notes stated that in April 2024 it tried to contact the neighbour in the flat directly above the resident’s property as the leak was also affecting the resident’s son’s bedroom. The landlord visited the property in May 2024 and said that although there was staining on the bathroom ceiling, the walls and ceiling were dry, indicating there were no active leaks. The landlord also visited the flat above the resident’s property and the flat above that one. It said the walls and ceilings were dry and there were no leaks on the heating or plumbing pipework in either flat. It tried to visit the top floor flat above these properties but there was no access.
An operative attended the resident’s property in June 2024 to make good the bathroom ceiling but was unable to carry out the work because the resident advised him there was still an ongoing, intermittent leak. Also, during June 2024, the local council carried out an inspection of the property as part of its duties under the Housing Act 2004.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 July 2024 about various matters including reports of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. An ongoing, intermittent leak from above.
3. Mice in the property.
Following contact from us, the landlord logged these issues as a new stage 1 complaint. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 27 August 2024 in which it stated the following:
1. It would arrange for a surveyor to inspect to identify the cause of the reported damp and mould, the source of the leak and the access points for the mice.
2. It accepted there had been a failure in its repairs service and apologised for this. It offered the resident £500 compensation.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 August 2024 to ask for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She said the landlord had only provided temporary solutions in relation to the issues she had reported. She said the issues had affected her mental and physical health, her work, college life and her finances and she could not continue to live in the property. However, she accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected on 14 October 2024 and, as a result of the inspection, he appointed a specialist contractor to investigate the damp and mould. On 12 November 2024, the local council issued the landlord with an Improvement Notice in relation to the inspection it had carried out in June 2024. The notice required the landlord to address various defects, including damp patches in the bathroom and bedroom. It identified the defects as category 2 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and said the landlord should start the remedial work by 17 December 2024 and finish the works by 20 February 2025.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 27 November 2024 in which it stated the following:
1. The service provided to the resident had been “substandard”, with only temporary solutions offered. The landlord said the resident had raised valid concerns about mismanagement and poor communications, including delays and a lack of follow-up to her enquiries.
2. A specialist contractor had recently been appointed by the landlord to investigate the damp and mould. The contractor had carried out leak detection in the flats above the resident’s property and had not found any leaks.
3. Although the resident had asked to be rehoused, the landlord said it was unable to rehouse residents as part of the complaints process.
4. A joint inspection had been booked for its surveyor and the specialist damp and mould contractor to inspect the property on 4 December 2024 to investigate the issues, including the reports of mice.
5. It upheld the complaint and offered the resident total compensation of £750 (£400 for distress and inconvenience and £350 for time and trouble caused by “extensive failure”).

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 response

The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 December 2024 and said the landlord had carried out a mould wash on 26 November 2024 and the contractor and landlord had jointly inspected on 4 December 2024. However, she said they had not yet established the cause of the intermittent leak and therefore they intended to visit the flats above the resident’s property. She then wrote to her Member of Parliament (MP) on 19 December 2024 and said the landlord had not yet advised her when the remedial work would begin, even though the council’s Improvement Notice had stipulated a start date no later than 17 December 2024.
During January to March 2025, the landlord corresponded with the resident’s MP to advise that its contractor was carrying out works in one of the upstairs flats to resolve the intermittent leak. It said the works had been delayed due to access difficulties. The landlord’s records state that most of the remedial works in the resident’s property were completed in May 2025. However, there were repairs that took longer, including repairs to the flooring and the shower screen. The resident wrote to us on 9 September 2025 to say that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs because of the delays in carrying out the works, the lack of communication, the quality of the works and other reasons. She also said that the issues with mice were still ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the following complaint falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s Subject Access Request (SAR).
Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
In this case, the resident stated as part of her stage 2 complaint on 5 September 2024 that she had previously requested the landlord to provide all information relating to her case, including all repair records since the start of her tenancy. The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that its subject access request team would respond to her request. As complaints about SARs fall within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office, this element of the complaint is outside of our jurisdiction.

Scope of investigation

The resident wrote to her MP on 21 October 2024 and said that the mould had led to various health conditions experienced by her and her son. She said they had experienced respiratory issues and allergic reactions. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through the courts or through the landlord’s insurers. We note that the landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that the resident could pursue a personal injury claim with its insurers and provided contact details for its Insurance team. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if she wishes to pursue a claim through the courts or through the landlord’s insurers.
In her stage 2 complaint dated 5 September 2024, the resident said that she had reported the leak several times since December 2022. The landlord had previously issued a stage 2 reply on 17 April 2023 relating to the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, mould and mice and we previously investigated these matters under case reference 202228976. Therefore, taking into account our previous investigation and other factors, such as the availability and reliability of evidence, we consider it fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from February 2024 onwards when the resident contacted the landlord to report a leak affecting the living room ceiling. Reference to the events that occurred prior to this is made in this report to provide context.
Some of the evidence we have received relates to events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 27 November 2024. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. This often means we will only investigate matters that occurred prior to the landlord’s stage 2 response. However, in this case, we consider it is fair and reasonable to also investigate matters that occurred in December 2024 because:
1. The local council had stipulated that the landlord should begin remedial works no later than 17 December 2024.
2. The resident had written to the landlord on 4 December 2024 setting out the reasons she was dissatisfied with its stage 2 response and we consider the landlord had sufficient opportunity to respond to her email during December 2024.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from above and associated damp and mould

The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are potential hazards and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy states:
1. “We will investigate all report of damp, mould and condensation within residents’ homes where we have responsibility for repairs. We will make sure we carry out, and complete, any necessary repairs that would help tackle the issue”.
2. “Depending on the complexity of the issue, diagnosis of damp, mould & condensation is carried out by our in-house surveyors, specialist consultants or repair delivery teams”.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will complete repairs within the following timescales:
1. Emergency repair (within normal working hours) – attend and complete within 4 hours.
2. Emergency repair (outside of normal working hours) – respond within 4 hours and make safe within 12 hours.
3. Recalls (where residents report work has not been completed) – complete within 5 calendar days.
4. Next available (non-urgent repair) – complete within 28 calendar days.
5. Programmed repair (works that require additional time due to complexity, including roofing work with scaffolding, damp works and kitchen replacement) – complete within 60 calendar days.
6. Specialist work (works that fall outside the timescale of a responsive repair due to complexity requiring a specialist contractor) – complete within 60 calendar days.
The landlord’s contractor visited on 18 June 2024 to carry out works to her bathroom ceiling. However, during the visit the resident pointed out that there was still an intermittent leak affecting the bathroom ceiling. The source of the leak would therefore have to be resolved before any repairs could be carried out to the ceiling. The landlord raised an order on the same day to check the flat above the resident’s property for leaks. It was reasonable that the landlord had raised an order on the same day as the operative’s visit to check the upstairs flat for a possible leak.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 July 2024 to report a crack in her son’s bedroom ceiling. The landlord attended the next day, which was appropriate to ensure the ceiling was safe. The operative found that the ceiling was safe and checked the flat upstairs for leaks. This was also appropriate because the resident had advised the operative that the crack in the ceiling had been caused by a leak from the upstairs flat. The operative said that water had been leaking from the shower curtain in the upstairs flat and there were gaps in the sealant around the bath.
An operative attended the property on 15 July 2024 and concluded that the leak from the upstairs flat that was affecting the bedroom had stopped. The operative tried to contact the neighbour in the upstairs flat but there was no access. It was reasonable that the landlord had tried to access the upstairs flat as this was thought to be the source of the intermittent leak affecting the resident’s property. The contractor had attended the property and then had tried to access the upstairs flat 27 calendar days after the operative’s initial visit on 18 June 2024. This was appropriate as the job had been raised on a 28-calendar day priority code.
The landlord attended the upstairs flat on 19 July 2024 and said that significant repairs may be needed to the neighbour’s bathroom to resolve the intermittent leak that was affecting the resident’s property. It was reasonable that the landlord had carried out a follow up visit to the upstairs flat as it had not been able to gain access a few days earlier on 15 July 2024.
On 27 August 2024, the landlord sent its stage 1 response in relation to a complaint from the resident about damp, mould and the intermittent leak from above. It said it needed to send a surveyor to inspect the property to identify the cause of the damp and mould and the source of the leak. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not yet taken meaningful action to address the leak at this stage. The resident had advised the contractor on 18 June 2024 there was an ongoing intermittent leak from the upstairs flat and operatives had already identified defects that might be causing the leak in the upstairs flat on 4 and 19 July 2024.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 September 2024 and asked for her complaint to be escalated because she said the landlord had not addressed the intermittent leak, the damp and mould. She said the situation was having an impact on the family’s physical/mental health, employment, college and finances. The landlord’s surveyor inspected on 14 October 2024, which was 7 weeks after it had advised the resident on 27 August 2024 that it would arrange the inspection. The delay was unreasonable given the delays the resident had already experienced and the impact she had advised the landlord that the leak, damp and mould were having on her household.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 October 2024 and said it had been almost 2 weeks since the surveyor’s inspection on 14 October 2024 and she had not heard anything. She said the surveyor had agreed to make an appointment for a mould wash but this had not happened. She said the leak had started again in her son’s bedroom and she was concerned about him breathing in mould spores. It was unreasonable that 10 days after the surveyor’s inspection, the landlord had not taken action to deal with the leak, damp and mould and had not communicated any plans to the resident for resolving the issues.
The landlord raised an order on 24 October 2024 to investigate an intermittent leak from the upstairs flat and an operative attended the next day. The operative tested all of the plumbing, checked under the bath and found it was all dry. The operative therefore arranged for a supervisor to attend the upstairs flat and the flat above that one on 28 October 2024. The supervisor carried out dye testing to the bath, wash basin and toilet in both flats and did not find any leaks. Although operatives who had previously investigated the leak had attributed its probable cause to the condition of the bathroom in the upstairs flat, It was reasonable that the contractor had carried out further in-depth investigations and tests in both of the upstairs flats to try to confirm the source of the leak.
On 5 November 2024, the landlord raised a job for a specialist contractor to investigate the damp and mould. This was reasonable as the landlord had not been able to confirm the source of the leak.
The local council issued an Improvement Notice to the landlord on 12 November 2024 in relation to an inspection it had carried out in June 2024. The Improvement Notice stated that there were category 2 damp and mould hazards in the property. The evidence shows that during the period from June 2024 to the date it received the Improvement Notice, the landlord had taken steps to investigate the source of the leak in the upstairs flats. However, in our view, the landlord had not taken appropriate steps to mitigate the impact of the mould on the resident’s household by arranging mould treatment.
It was unreasonable that the landlord had not acted to treat the mould as the potential health problems caused by mould are known. In our view, the landlord should have acted with greater urgency to treat the mould, even if this had only temporarily alleviated the problem until the leak was resolved. The landlord’s records show that the resident was concerned about her health and that of her son because of the reported damp and mould. For example, the resident had advised the landlord on 21 August 2024 during a phone call that her son was having breathing difficulties and mould was present in the bathroom and in the hallway. The landlord’s contractor carried out mould treatment on 26 November 2024.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 response dated 27 November 2024 that it had booked an appointment for its surveyor and the specialist damp and mould contractor to carry out a joint inspection on 4 December 2024. It was reasonable that the landlord and the contractor had agreed to jointly inspect the property as this would enable them to agree the remedial works required. However, as the landlord had raised the order on 5 November 2024 for the contractor to investigate the damp and mould, it was unreasonable that the joint inspection had not been arranged to take place earlier. The delay meant that at the time of sending its stage 2 reply on 27 November 2024, the resident had still not received a clear plan for addressing the intermittent leak.
The joint inspection took place as scheduled on 4 December 2024 and included an inspection of the upstairs flat. The landlord appropriately raised an order on the same day to carry out various works in the upstairs flat to address the intermittent leak. However, on 19 December 2024, the resident wrote to her MP and expressed concerns that the intermittent leak was still ongoing, which resulted in water leaking onto her son’s bed. She mentioned that the Improvement Notice served by the council had directed the landlord to start remedial works no later than 17 December 2024 and to provide the resident with adequate written notice of its intention to carry out the work.
In terms of the landlord complying with the Improvement Notice, we have found that the landlord had started some of the work stipulated in the notice, namely:
1. It had instructed a competent specialist to properly investigate the source of the damp/ water penetration, including checking the upstairs flats.
2. It had raised an order to carry out the remedial works in the upstairs flat to resolve the leak.
3. It had carried out a mould wash on 26 November 2024.
However, the landlord had not provided the resident with a timescale for remedial works, nor provided the resident with written notice of its intention to carry out the work. The landlord had therefore not complied with the communication requirements of the Improvement Notice. Although we would not have expected the landlord to provide the resident with details of the works being proposed in the upstairs flat, we would expect the landlord to have provided a timetable for resolving the leak and for carrying out remedial work to the resident’s property. The landlord’s failure to communicate this information was unreasonable and added to the resident’s uncertainty, which led to her contacting her MP for assistance.
We have concluded that the landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the period we investigated was poor. It meant that the resident had to chase the landlord for updates and contact her MP for assistance. For example, she contacted the landlord on 5 July, 21 August and 24 October 2024 for updates and her MP on 21 October and 19 December 2024. Our conclusion is that the level of communication from the landlord to the resident was unreasonable and this added to her distress regarding the condition of the property.
During the complaints process, the resident requested the landlord to rehouse her because of the reported issues regarding the leak, damp, mould and pests and also because of reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) by other residents. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that t was unable to rehouse residents as part of its complaint resolution process because it had a separate process for considering rehousing requests. The landlord’s response was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy, which states that it may not consider matters that could be dealt with under another policy appeal process, such as internal transfer applications.
In summary, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s handling of the reported leak, damp and mould during the period covered by our investigation:
1. At the time of sending its stage 1 response on 27 August 2024, the landlord had not taken any substantive action to resolve the leak, nor sent a surveyor to carry out an inspection. This was despite being advised by operatives on 4 and 19 July 2024 that there were issues with the bathroom in the upstairs flat.
2. It took a further 7 weeks for the surveyor to inspect the flat after advising the resident on 27 August 2024 that it would arrange the inspection.
3. It took a further 10 days after the surveyor’s inspection on 14 October 2024 to raise a follow-up order to investigate the leak from the upstairs flat. Furthermore, during this period, the landlord had not communicated the outcome of the inspection to the resident.
4. The landlord did not carry out mould treatment in the resident’s property until 26 November 2024, despite the resident reporting damp and mould on 5 July and 21 August 2024 and advising the landlord that her son was having breathing difficulties.
5. The joint inspection involving the surveyor and the specialist contractor did not take place until 4 December 2024, which was a month after the landlord had raised the order. This showed a lack of urgency on the landlord’s part.
6. By 19 December 2024, the landlord had not provided the resident with notice of its intention to carry out the works or communicated a clear plan for addressing the leak and carrying out remedial works in her property. This was despite the requirement in the Improvement Notice to provide this information.
7. The landlord did not adequately communicate with the resident about the reported leak, damp and mould during the period of our investigation.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging in its stage 1 response dated 27 August 2024 that there had been a failure in its repairs service. It sought to put things right by apologising for the service provided to the resident and by offering compensation of £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time, trouble and the impact on the resident’s family. The landlord used its stage 2 reply dated 27 November 2024 to apologise again for the delays in resolving the repairs and in providing information. It offered additional compensation of £750 for distress inconvenience, time, trouble and the uncertainty caused. The landlord also acted fairly by explaining to the resident that she could submit a personal injury claim to its liability insurer regarding her health concerns relating to the damp and mould.
The landlord’s total offer at stages 1 and 2 was therefore £1,250. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may offer compensation of £1,000 or more in cases where there has been a service failure that was “significant in terms of the event itself and/or its duration, causing serious short or long-term impact”. Based on our investigation, our view is that it was appropriate for the landlord to consider there had been significant failures in its handling of the reported leak, damp and mould. The landlord’s offer of compensation was therefore fair, proportionate and in line with its policy.
However, we have not made a finding of reasonable redress in this case, because by the time of its stage 2 reply on 27 November 2024 the landlord had not yet resolved the leak nor communicated a firm plan with timescales for carrying out remedial works. It had therefore not satisfactorily resolved the resident’s complaint.
We have made a finding of service failure, which recognises that the landlord had made an offer of compensation that was fair at the point of sending its stage 2 response. However, as the substantive issues of the leak, damp and mould had not been resolved at this point, the landlord had not put things right. As we have not investigated matters that occurred after December 2024, we have ordered the landlord to consider paying additional compensation to the resident from December 2024 until the time all of the remedial works were completed.
In terms of learning from the complaints process, the landlord used its stage 2 response to identify steps it would take to improve its services, including ensuring there was better communication and stronger oversight when coordinating repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mice in the property

The landlord’s pest control policy states:
1. It will assess infestations of mice and rats.
2. “We will take reasonably prompt action to manage pest infestations for which we are responsible”.
3. “Where we attend to a property for pest infestation, proofing works may be carried out, to prevent future infestation”.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 July 2024 and stated that she was still seeing mice in her property. The landlord’s records show that it had carried out treatment and proofing for mice in 2023. However, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord arranged for a pest controller to investigate the resident’s reports of mice in July 2024, despite us requesting this information from the landlord. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not arrange for a suitably qualified person to check the resident’s property for mice. The landlord had previously accepted responsibility for dealing with the mice in 2023 and the resident had clearly stated that she was still seeing mice in the property.
The landlord advised the resident in its stage 1 response dated 27 August 2024 that it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect the property, which would include identifying where mice were entering the property. It was reasonable for the surveyor to investigate possible entry points and identify proofing work. However, it is unclear why the landlord had not at the same time arranged for a pest controller to check for mice activity and, if necessary, carry out treatment. This was unreasonable as it had been almost 2 months since the resident had reported seeing mice on 5 July 2024 and the landlord had not taken any action to arrange treatment or check for mice activity.
The surveyor carried out an inspection on 14 October 2024 and subsequently raised an order to investigate the reported leak, damp and mould. However, we have seen no evidence that following the inspection, the landlord either arranged for a pest controller to attend the property or advised the resident that action was not deemed necessary in relation to her reports of mice. This was unreasonable as the resident continued to report mice in the property. For example, she wrote to her MP on 21 October 2024 and said she was still experiencing issues with pests.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 27 November 2024 and said that an appointment had been made for its surveyor and a specialist damp and mould contractor to carry out a joint inspection on 4 December 2024. It said that they would check for a mice infestation as part of the inspection. We have again seen no evidence that following the inspection, the landlord either arranged for a pest controller to treat the property for mice or wrote to the resident to explain why it did not consider this to be necessary. This was unreasonable as the landlord had advised the resident on 27 November 2024 that the surveyor and contractor would inspect for a mice infestation during the joint inspection.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 December 2024 and said she was dissatisfied with its stage 2 response. In her email, she said she was facing the continuous issue of mice in the property, which she said had not yet been addressed. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s report that she was still facing issues with mice. This was unreasonable as she had continued to report problems with mice. The lack of response to her email prompted the resident to write to her MP on 19 December 2024 to request assistance and advise the MP that the landlord had not responded to her email.
To summarise, we have found that the landlord did not respond appropriately to the resident’s reports of mice between July and December 2024. It did not arrange for a pest controller to attend during this period to check for mice activity, carry out pest treatment or proofing, despite the resident reporting the issue on various occasions. Although inspections involving a surveyor were carried on 14 October and 4 December 2024, the landlord did not arrange any follow-up visits by a pest controller or write to the resident explaining why this was not considered necessary. The landlord therefore did not take appropriate action to manage the reported mice infestation in line with its pest control policy.
The landlord’s records show that it had arranged pest treatment in relation to other properties in the block during the period we have investigated. However, due to the landlord’s lack of substantive action in response to the resident’s reports of mice and its lack of communication regarding the issue, we have found there was maladministration by the landlord. We have ordered the landlord to write to the resident setting out its plans for checking the property for mice and carrying out appropriate treatment/proofing.
Although the landlord had offered compensation in its complaint responses for distress and inconvenience in relation to the reported, leak, damp and mould, we are not satisfied that the landlord acknowledged its failings in terms of the resident’s reports of mice. For example, although the surveyor had inspected the property on 14 October 2024, the landlord did not use its stage 2 reply to give any indication of his findings in relation to mice. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £300 to put things right in relation to its failure to address the resident’s reports of mice. This figure is in line with our Remedies Guidance for situations where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident. The amount ordered reflects the following factors:
1. The time and effort spent by the resident in chasing the landlord and contacting her MP regarding the issue of mice.
2. The distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident due to the reported presence of mice in her property.
3. The additional frustration and uncertainty experienced by the resident due to the landlord’s lack of communication regarding her reports of mice, particularly the lack of feedback following the surveyor’s inspections.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages: stage 1 complaints are logged and acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt and responded to within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days of the escalation request and responses are sent within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. At both stages of the process, the timescale for responding may be extended as long as the landlord provides an explanation to the resident and a timeframe for when the response will be sent. The extension should not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2 without good reason.
The resident wrote to us on 5 July 2024 and said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 reply in relation to a complaint she had made about ASB. However, in her email she also said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of an intermittent leak, damp, mould and mice. We wrote to the landlord on 19 August 2024 regarding the resident’s escalation request and the landlord advised us on the same day that it would log a new complaint regarding the reports of a leak, damp, mould and mice. It was appropriate for the landlord to log a new complaint as these issues had not been part of the resident’s earlier stage 1 complaint, which had been about ASB. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 August 2024 to acknowledge her new stage 1 complaint regarding the reported leak, damp, mould and mice. The landlord had therefore acknowledged the complaint within an appropriate timescale in line with its policy.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 27 August 2024, which was 5 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint. Consequently, the landlord had responded to the complaint within an appropriate timescale which was in line with its policy.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 September 2024 and asked for her complaint to be escalated. A member of the landlord’s complaints team wrote to the resident on 19 September 2024 to confirm the complaint was being dealt with. However, the landlord did not formally acknowledge the stage 2 complaint in writing until 28 October 2024, which was 37 working days after receiving the escalation request. This was inappropriate and not in line with its policy.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 27 November 2024, which was 22 working days after sending its stage 2 acknowledgement. Although the landlord had responded within a reasonable timescale after sending the acknowledgement, the initial delay in acknowledging the complaint meant that the overall stage 2 process had not been completed within an appropriate timescale. The delay meant that the resident spent further time and trouble chasing the landlord, contacting her MP and writing to us. For example, she wrote to her MP on 21 October 2024, chased the landlord for a response on 24 October 2024 and wrote to us on 21 October and 1 November 2024.
In its stage 2 reply, the landlord apologised for the delay in processing the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged that the service it had provided to the resident had been below the required standard and confirmed that the delay had been taken into account as part of its review of the resident’s complaint. The landlord therefore acted fairly by acknowledging the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint and apologising for this. Furthermore, it sought to put things right by offering compensation. The amount offered at stage 2 was £750, £350 of which was for the resident’s time and trouble.
As stated above, the resident went to additional time and trouble in pursuing her complaint because of the landlord’s failure to respond within the timescale stipulated in its complaints policy. Therefore, in our view it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise this in its compensation offer.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may award compensation of up to £250 for “a failure to follow the complaints policy or procedure, or to correctly investigate a complaint, resulting in inconvenience and effort to progress”. The landlord did not break down the compensation offer between its handling of the substantive issues (the leak, damp, mould and the mice) and its complaint handling. However, as previously stated, we consider that at the point of sending its stage 2 response, the landlord made an offer of compensation that was fair in relation to its handling of the reported leak, damp and mould. We also consider the landlord’s offer to have been fair and proportionate to put things right in terms of the additional time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing her complaint due to the delay. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.
In reaching our conclusion we have taken into account various factors, including that the landlord had maintained some contact with the resident before formally acknowledging the complaint. For example, a member of its complaints team had phoned the resident on 19 September 2024 to confirm the complaint had been logged. It had also texted the resident on 9 October 2024 to check whether the leak had been resolved and had emailed her on 10 October to confirm that a surveyor would attend on 14 October 2024.
In terms of learning from its failings, the landlord stated in its stage 2 response that it was in the process of reviewing its complaint handling procedure to ensure it had sufficient resources. It was reasonable that the landlord had identified measures to enable it to learn from its failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from above and associated damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of mice in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s Subject Access Request (SAR) is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to provide evidence that it has:
1. Written to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Paid the resident the £750 offered at stage 2 in for the distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from above and associated damp and mould.
3. Considered paying additional compensation to the resident for the period from December 2024 until the date all of the remedial works relating to the leak, damp and mould were completed and written to the resident with its decision.
4. Paid the resident £300 in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of mice in the property.
5. Written to the resident setting out its proposals for addressing the reports of mice in the property, including proposals for treatment and proofing as required.