Peabody Trust (202303680)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303680

Peabody Trust

20 June 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. Handling of the repairs to the resident’s property following a leak from a neighbouring property.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the safety of the property’s kitchen ceiling following the leak.
3. Complaints handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, which is a 4-bedroom first-floor flat. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, although he is referred to as a “vulnerable tenant” in its repairs records. Throughout this report, references to “the resident” may include actions taken by his daughter on his behalf.
On 17 March 2023, the landlord raised an emergency repair to investigate a suspected leak from the resident’s property, as water was entering the bathroom of the flat below. The landlord attended but could not locate the source of the leak. On 20 March 2023, the resident reported water coming through his kitchen ceiling. The landlord inspected his property, but no leak was found. On 8 April 2023, the resident’s kitchen ceiling collapsed. The resident was temporarily moved to a hotel, and he remained in temporary accommodation until he returned home on 22 June 2023.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 11 April 2023. He complained that operatives had attended and confirmed that the ceiling was sound on 3 occasions between 17 March 2023 and 8 April 2023. The resident made multiple requests for a surveyor to attend, noting that the occupants of the flat below were moved into temporary accommodation after their ceiling collapsed on 1 April 2023, but the landlord had not agreed to this request. He said that the landlord had failed to trace the source of the leak, or to carry out adequate investigations to assess the damage, leaving him in a property that was unsafe. The resident was frustrated that the landlord was not taking responsibility and said its communication had been very poor.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 24 July 2023. It said:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint, its poor communication, and the lack of updates.
2. There had been several callouts to the affected properties before the ceiling collapsed, and it noted that the resident had safety concerns. In line with its processes, it had to raise a job with its contractor to get a referral before a surveyor visit could be arranged.
3. After the resident’s neighbour’s ceiling collapsed, a repair had been raised to inspect the property’s flooring. The landlord had also scheduled an appointment for 12 April 2023 to repair the leaks in the property above.
4. The landlord apologised that the ceiling had collapsed because of pressure from the ongoing leak and said it was sorry for the stress and inconvenience caused. It said it could not comment on advice given to the resident by its contractors that the ceiling would not collapse.
5. The resident had discussed the scope of works with the surveyor on 26 May 2023. Works were completed in June 2023 and the resident moved back home on 18 June 2023.
6. The landlord offered £534.88 compensation. It said it could not include compensation for the period the resident was in temporary accommodation. The resident should speak to the Housing Team about costs incurred during that period.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 28 July 2023. He said he thought the complaint had been escalated weeks ago, as the landlord had not responded. The resident asked the landlord to meet with him to discuss his concerns.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 17 October 2023. It said that:
1. It acknowledged that the complaint concerned not only the delays in resolving the issue but also the overall safety of the resident’s household.
2. It accepted that it had failed to promptly address the leak, and that “the leak was allowed to persist until it caused significant damage and led to [the resident’s] relocation to temporary accommodation.” The landlord was sorry that it had “failed to demonstrate the urgency required in the managing of the repairs.”
3. The landlord outlined the lessons it had learnt from the complaint and said it would feedback to all teams involved and to its contractor.
4. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £934.88.
The resident referred his to complaint to us on 29 January 2024. He said that the repairs had been completed but that the landlord’s offer of compensation did not reflect the considerable effect on his mental health and wellbeing. The resident said the offer should consider the period where he was in temporary accommodation and the damage to his personal belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

While the Housing Omudsman Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability, or to make findings about whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, caused detriment to a resident’s health. We cannot reach a finding that a landlord was negligent or calculate or award damages. We are therefore unable to investigate, or to reach a determination on these aspects of the resident’s complaint, and the resident might wish to consider seeking legal advice in relation to these matters.
After the landlord issued its final complaint response, the resident said it had failed to include an amount for damage to his personal belongings in its offer of compensation. We have not seen any evidence that this was raised as part of the original complaint. We do sometimes consider things that have happened since the date of the final complaint response; however, as this Service is unable to determine causation in cases of damage to property, this matter has been excluded from the scope of our investigation. The resident may wish to consider contacting the landlord to pursue a claim for damage to personal belongings via its insurer.

Handling of repairs following the leak

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for maintaining and keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, including internal ceilings and plasterwork. The landlord is also responsible for keeping in good repair installations for the supply of water and electricity.
The landlord has provided a copy of its Repairs Policy in use at the date of the first report of a leak on 17 March 2023. It has also provided a copy of an amended policy that was introduced on 1 April 2023. At the time the leak was first reported, the landlord’s Repairs Policy said that an emergency repair would usually be attended and completed within 4 hours. If there was “a high risk or vulnerability” the landlord would attend within 2 hours. In the policy introduced on 1 April 2023 it says that emergency repairs, “are repairs that need a rapid response to safeguard the wellbeing of residents, the structural stability and integrity of properties and/or the health and safety of people using the affected area.”
In response to the first report on 17 March 2023, the landlord’s records confirm that it raised a job to investigate the leak. At that time, the parties suspected the leak had started in the resident’s property, as water was only visible in the property below. It was appropriate that the landlord raised this as an emergency repair; however, it is unclear from the evidence if it attended within 4 hours, as required under its Repairs Policy.
The landlord added a note to its repairs records on 21 March 2023 confirming that it had investigated the resident’s flat, but it could not trace the leak. On 31 March 2023, the resident reported that water marks had appeared on the kitchen ceiling and that there was damage to the grouting of the bathroom tiles. The landlord has not provided evidence of the action it took between 21 March 2023 and 31 March 2023 to trace and repair the leak. It is not clear from the evidence provided whether the landlord knew the leak was still live, or whether it had made efforts to contain it.
The landlord should keep sufficiently detailed and accessible repairs records, including details of all communications with the resident and its contractor, details of internal discussions, and system notes confirming the dates and outcomes of any repairs visits. Its failure to create, retain and/or provide this information to us has limited our ability to investigate. This means that we cannot reach evidence-based conclusions about whether the action it took to trace and remedy the leak was reasonable. In the absence of this information, we must conclude that the landlord did not act appropriately.
On 31 March 2023, the landlord raised several jobs, including one to investigate and rectify rotten flooring and one to “make good” paintwork following a previous repair. This was clearly inappropriate as the damage had not been assessed, and the landlord does not appear to have confirmedwhether the leak had stopped.
The ceiling of the flat below the resident’s property collapsed on 1 April 2023.The landlord spoke to the resident on 4 April 2023 and, in response to his concerns about the integrity of his kitchen ceiling and flooring, it raised a job to “make safe” the kitchen ceiling. The landlord’s repairs records from that date state “ceiling is safe.”The landlord’s response to the resident’s safety concerns is assessed under a separate heading below.
On 6 April 2023, the resident called to report that the leak was ongoing. The landlord’s repairs records from that date state, “please advise if decant needed.” There is no evidence that the landlord considered whether this was necessary, or if it did so, it failed to record its decision. This was particularly unreasonable, as the resident was flagged on the landlord’s repairs records as a vulnerable tenant.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said that it was initially unable to access the flat above. It says it did investigate and that 2 leaks were identified, although we have not seen evidence of this. The landlord then booked works for 12 April 2023 to repair the leak. Meanwhile, the resident continued to report worsening water penetration into his property. The resident’s ceiling collapsed on 8 April 2023, and he was moved into temporary accommodation on that day on the advice of the fire brigade, who said it was not safe for him to remain in the property.
In our view, the landlord delayed unreasonably in arranging access to the flat above and in organising works to trace and remedy the leak. The landlord did not act quickly enough to prevent further damage to the resident’s property. In addition to any express term in the tenancy agreement giving the landlord a right to enter a premises to inspect, there is an implied right for the landlord to inspect a property within Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. There is no evidence that the landlord considered whether it was necessary to enforce its right to gain emergency access and works to repair the leak were not booked until almost a month after a leak into the flat below was first reported. This was unreasonable and caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
After the ceiling collapsed, we understand that the landlord’s contractor completed works to stop the leak on 14 April 2023, although this is not recorded in the repairs records the landlord has provided to us. The resident says that an operative visited his property that day to take photographs. The resident requested a surveyor attend to assess the overall damage. The landlord raised repairs appointments with various trades for 26 April, 27 April, and 4 May 2023.
Given the repeated issues, it was reasonable for the resident to ask the landlord to complete a survey before any works were arranged, and to raise concerns about individual trades attending when there was no evidence that the root cause and any resulting damage had been adequately assessed. As stated above, residents are required to provide access to their properties on reasonable notice for landlords to investigate and complete repairs. However, the landlord should have considered the resident’s request with its contractor and either arranged for an inspection by a surveyor or other suitable professional or explained why it did not think this was necessary.
The landlord’s communication with the resident and its contractor about the leak, the repairs, and the temporary accommodation was poor. The landlord has not provided us with any evidence of its communications with its contractor, except for an exchange of emails from 10 May 2023. The contractor said it had attended to repair flooring to find that the ceiling had collapsed, and much more extensive works were required. The landlord then asked the contractor to appoint a surveyor to assess the damage. This was over a month after the resident’s ceiling had collapsed. The remedial works were poorly co-ordinated, and the landlord failed to proactively attend to its repairs obligations by effectively managing its contractor. The resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates on the status of the works and their decant, causing further distress and inconvenience.
Where we have identified failings by a landlord, we will then consider whether the redress it offered was sufficient to put things right and to satisfactorily resolve the resident’s complaint in the circumstances. The resident has said that the offer of compensation is inadequate, given the stress and inconvenience he experienced. He also disputes the landlord’s statement in its stage 1 response that it could not consider compensation in relation to the service he received after 8 April 2023 during the period he was in temporary accommodation.
It is standard practice that a tenant will continue to pay their rent and service charge while in temporary accommodation. The landlord awarded compensation for loss of use of the resident’s kitchen for the 2 weeks prior to the move into temporary accommodation following the ceiling collapse, which was reasonable in the circumstances, as he noted that water was dripping onto the cooker preventing him from using it during this period. We would not expect the landlord to continue to compensate a resident for loss of use of a room while in temporary accommodation.
Disturbance payments and expenses are not covered by the landlord’s Compensation Policy and so the landlord was right to consider this separately to the compensation offered in relation to the complaint. The resident has confirmed to us that he was reimbursed for his costs during the decant period, although he noted that there was a long delay in the landlord processing these payments.
In our view, the landlord’s complaint investigation and final offer of compensation should have considered the period from the first report of 17 March 2023 until the date all repairs were completed. The landlord was wrong to state that it could not consider the service the resident received during the period after 8 April 2023 under its complaints process. There is nothing in its complaints or compensation policies preventing it from doing so.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s final compensation offer of £684.88 does not adequately reflect the stress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of its failings, the effect of the delay, and the time and trouble the resident took to pursue the repairs. In our view, compensation in the sum of £834.88 is appropriate in the circumstances. This sum is made up of £750 to recognise the time and trouble the resident was put to and the stress and inconvenience he experienced, together with £10 for a missed appointment and £74.88 for loss of use of a room. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance, which says such sums are appropriate in circumstances where the landlord’s maladministration had a significant impact on the resident, taking into account that he was flagged as vulnerable on its repairs records. The £250 offered by the landlord in recognition of the effect of its poor complaints handling is considered in the complaints handling section below.
The Order for £834.88 compensation replaces the £684.88 offered to the resident in the landlord’s final complaint response. If any or all of that amount has already been paid to the resident following the final complaint response, the landlord may deduct that sum from the amount due under the Order made in this report.

Response to the resident’s safety concerns

In response to the resident’s safety concerns, the landlord raised a job on 5 April 2023 for its contractor to attend to punch holes in the ceiling and to drain off water. The resident has said that the landlord’s operative did attend on more than one occasion to complete works to relieve the pressure. The resident says that he was assured that the ceiling was safe.
The landlord did take some action in response to the resident’s concerns by raising jobs with its contractor. The contractor sent an operative to assess the ceiling. The operative carried out works to reduce the pressure and, in the operative’s opinion, the ceiling was not at risk of collapse.
We cannot assess the competence of the operative sent by the landlord’s contractor, or whether it would have been more appropriate to send a surveyor. We also cannot comment on whether it was reasonable for the operative to conclude that the ceiling was safe. This is because we do not have the technical expertise to do so within our organisation. We do, however, consider that it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of a trained operative sent by its contractor, and to trust that the works completed had been necessary and appropriate to prevent further damage.
We understand that it was distressing for the resident to experience the collapse of his ceiling following reassurances that it was sound, however, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to his concerns.
We note that in its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it was unable to raise a job for a surveyor to attend without first raising a job with its contractor. We consider that this policy risks causing avoidable delay in emergency situations where it may be clear to the landlord that a surveyor should attend the first callout. We therefore recommend that the landlord review its policy and consider amending its processes to allow it to expedite this process where necessary.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. If an extension is required, it will write to the resident to explain why and let them know when it intends to respond.
In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), we expect landlords to contact residents to acknowledge complaints or complaint escalations within 5 working days. In this case, the resident complained on 11 April 2023, and he received no contact from the landlord’s complaints team until 13 June 2023, when it wrote to say that it had been co-ordinating repairs with the various teams and was not yet in a position to provide a complaint response. This was unacceptable.
The Code states that a complaint response must be provided when the answer is known, and not when all outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 24 July 2023, over 3 months after the complaint was made and far in excess of its published timescales. The stage 1 response said that it had only considered events up to 8 April 2023 and so there is no reasonable justification for the significant delay in responding, or for its failure to contact the resident to provide updates.
After the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 28 July 2023, it was over a month before the landlord contacted him to request additional information, and the complaint escalation was not acknowledged until 2 October 2023. This understandably increased the resident’s frustration.
The final complaint response was not provided until 17 October 2023, which was almost 3 months after the escalation request and 4 months after works were completed. The landlord’s failure to adhere to its policies and procedures, and to communicate appropriately with the resident reinforced his belief that it did not care and was not willing to take responsibility for its actions.
The landlord offered £250 compensation in its stage 2 complaint response, in recognition of the effect of its poor complaints handling. The Ombudsman considers that this sum was appropriate and in line with our remedies guidance, to recognise the adverse effect of its poor communication and the considerable delays in its complaints handling. The Ombudsman therefore considers that the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident that is reasonable and satisfactorily resolves his complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s property following a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the safety of the property’s kitchen ceiling following the leak.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves his complaint about poor complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £834.88 compensation to recognise the effect of its failings in its handling of repairs following the leak.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the resident the £250 compensation for complaints handling if this has not already been paid to him.
It is recommended that the landlord review its policies and procedures for arranging surveyor inspections via its contractor, to ensure that its current processes do not contribute to unnecessary and avoidable delay.
It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities, as it reported to us that none are recorded on its housing system, but the resident was listed as vulnerable in its repairs records.