We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Peabody Trust (202310582)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310582

Peabody Trust

29 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the resident’s reports of a leak and repairs to kitchen cupboards, the kitchen ceiling, and a faulty light.
    2. the resident’s reports of overgrown ivy affecting the property’s windows.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property. The landlord has told us that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, but she has informed us of several physical and mental health conditions.
  2. On 25 October 2023, the resident told us that a leak had caused water damage to her kitchen cupboard. A surveyor attended on 31 October 2023. On 16 November 2023, the resident emailed her landlord to say that someone had attended on 6 November 2023 to repair the kitchen cupboard, but they were not aware of the nature and extent of the damage. The resident told the landlord she had made a complaint but had not received a response. She noted that she was vulnerable and disabled, with multiple health conditions. The landlord replied that it had been unable to contact the resident to arrange an appointment. It said that it had not logged her concerns as a formal complaint, but it could arrange this if she wanted.
  3. On 8 December 2023, we contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf to ask it to raise a formal complaint. We asked the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns about its response to a leak causing damage to her kitchen sink unit, a damaged kitchen light and ceiling, overgrown ivy causing issues with her windows, and repairs to the kitchen cupboards.
  4. The landlord provided a response at stage 1 of its complaints process on 22 December 2023. The landlord said that:
    1. It had been unable to contact the resident about her complaint and its contractors had had difficulty arranging appointments to complete the works. The resident had been unwell, and the landlord said it would advise its contractors to keep trying to contact her before cancelling repairs in the future.
    2. The resident had refused repairs to the kitchen sink unit on 31 August 2023, as she wanted a new worktop, sink, and base unit. The landlord’s contractor had inspected in November 2023 and confirmed that the unit was not rotten and in good condition. The resident’s kitchen was due for renewal in 3 years’ time, but the landlord would continue to carry out any required repairs in the meantime.
    3. It had repaired the kitchen light on 22 November 2023 following access issues.
    4. The landlord had raised a job to repair the property’s windows, but this was cancelled by its contractor as it needed to arrange for the ivy to be removed first.
    5. The landlord had raised a job to repair the resident’s kitchen cupboards and ceiling, but this had been cancelled as the contractor was unable to contact the resident. It had raised a new repair for these works.
    6. The landlord had booked an appointment for 8 January 2024 to repair the leak in the kitchen and to treat damp and mould.
    7. The landlord would contact the resident after repairs were completed to discuss compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience she had experienced.
  5. On 6 February 2024, the resident told us that the landlord had replaced the sink unit, but that the other issues were not resolved. On 20 March 2024, we asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. The landlord provided a final response to the complaint on 1 May 2024. It said that:
    1. The resident advised that she could not provide access to carry out works to the property’s bathroom to prevent a leak into the kitchen below, as she had experienced a bereavement. The landlord asked the resident to get back in touch when she could provide access. The landlord would complete works to the kitchen ceiling and light once the leak had been fixed. The resident was advised to request a “make safe” appointment for the light if she had not already done so.
    2. The landlord would arrange for a surveyor to attend to assess the ivy, and overall condition of the kitchen, taking into account the resident’s complaint and vulnerabilities. The landlord would then advise on an action plan.
    3. The landlord apologised for a delay in escalating and acknowledging the complaint at stage 2. It accepted that its approach to the repairs had not been joined up but noted that there had been contact and access issues. The landlord offered a total of £1,540 compensation, made up of £940 to recognise the effect of its poor repairs handling, and £600 for its poor complaints handling.
  6. After the final complaint response, the resident asked the landlord to increase its offer of compensation to £2,000. She also disagreed with the landlord’s decision not to replace the kitchen, which she said was not fit for purpose or suitable to accommodate her medical conditions. When the resident referred her complaint to us, she said that she wanted the landlord to increase its offer of compensation and to complete all outstanding works.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord is required to maintain and repair the structure and exterior of the property, including ceilings and windows. The landlord is also responsible for maintaining installations for the provision of services, including light fittings, sinks and pipes. It also accepts that it is responsible for maintaining and repairing the fitted kitchen cupboards.
  2. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy says that it will respond to non-urgent repairs within 28 calendar days. It will respond to a specialist or programmed repair, which may require specialist works or manufacturing time, within 60 working days. Emergency repairs will be responded to within 4 hours.

Leak and repairs to kitchen cupboards, ceiling, and light

  1. From the records provided to us, it has been difficult to establish a clear chain of events, and it is unclear whether the same leak was affecting the kitchen sink unit, ceiling, and light, or whether these were separate issues. We note that at stage 2 the landlord believed the leak was caused by gaps in the grouting in the bathroom above, but following the final complaint response the landlord identified leaking toilet pipes. For ease, we have considered the landlord’s handling of all the kitchen repairs issues under one complaint heading.
  2. When the resident first contacted us, she said that the landlord’s surveyor had attended on 31 August 2023 to inspect water damage to the kitchen sink unit. In its stage 1 response the landlord said that the resident had refused works to the kitchen unit, as she wanted a replacement. It also said that it had inspected again in November 2023 and confirmed that the kitchen sink unit was in good condition. The landlord has not provided any evidence of its inspection in the form of repairs records or reports. Without this information, we cannot conclude that its actions were reasonable and based on appropriate professional advice. The landlord is required to keep detailed and accurate records of all repairs appointments, including inspections. Its failure to do so has affected our ability to investigate the complaint. It has therefore been recommended to review its record keeping practices to make sure clear, detailed, and accurate records of all repairs appointments and communications with residents and its contractor are recorded on its systems, in line with our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 November 2023 and on 16 November 2023 to complain that its contractor had attended to carry out inappropriate works to repair the cupboard. Assuming that the leak was still live at this time, it was not appropriate for the landlord to send someone to repair the sink unit without first addressing the leak. There is no evidence that it responded to the resident to explain its actions, and its records suggest it only made one attempt to contact her on 8 December 2023, which was the date we asked it to raise a formal complaint. In our view, the landlord’s handling of the kitchen sink unit repair was poor, and it did not make sufficient efforts to communicate with the resident about the issue.
  4. As part of its complaint resolution at stage 1, the landlord said that an appointment had been booked for 8 January 2024 “for the leak in the kitchen to be repaired”. The landlord did take action to progress the repair as a result of the complaint, and we can see from its records that it attempted to contact the resident on 11 December 2023 and 19 December 2023. The stage 1 complaint response acknowledged that the resident had been unwell and that it had been unable to arrange a repair sooner as it was not able to get in touch with her. On 6 February 2024, the resident confirmed that the landlord had replaced her kitchen sink unit.
  5. The landlord’s willingness to replace the sink unit demonstrates that it wanted to find a solution that was acceptable to the resident, in order to put things right. It also committed at stage 2 to survey the overall condition of the kitchen. It had previously informed the resident that her kitchen was due for renewal in 3 years’ time, and that it would complete any works required for health and safety but not replace the entire kitchen before that time. In general, this was a reasonable response, however, the resident had made the landlord aware that she had several medical conditions. The landlord should have advised the resident of its adaptations policy, so that she could request an adaptation if she felt this was necessary. There is no evidence that it did so.
  6. At stage 1 of the complaint, the landlord also raised an appointment for works to the kitchen ceiling, but the resident told us on 6 February 2024 that she was unhappy with the works completed, as the landlord had just painted over the cracked area and failed to treat damp and mould caused by water penetration. The resident chased the repairs on 15 February 2024, but there is no evidence that the landlord returned her call. There appears to have been no further action until we raised the escalation with the landlord on 20 March 2024, which was unacceptable. The evidence suggests that the landlord attempted to complete repairs to the ceiling without first identifying the cause of the issues.
  7. At stage 2 the landlord said it had identified that regrouting works were required in the bathroom, as it believed this was the source of the leak. It said it had cancelled an appointment to complete these works at the resident’s request and invited her to get in touch to rearrange. This approach was appropriate in the circumstances, given the contact and access difficulties. The landlord also gave advice that the resident should request a “make safe” appointment for the electrics, if she had not already done so. Although its advice was appropriate, if the landlord believed that the ceiling light may be unsafe, it could have made additional attempts to contact the resident or attended the property to speak with her. There is no evidence that it did so.
  8. The evidence provided does not accurately record all repairs appointments by the landlord’s staff and its contractor or contain sufficient information about their actions to allow us to investigate the complaint. It is clear, however, that the landlord failed to approach the issues holistically, by first identifying the source of the leaks before arranging repairs. Had the landlord completed a comprehensive survey of the property’s kitchen in November 2023, it may have been able to identify and resolve the issues sooner.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 30 April 2024, it did commit to survey the property, and it acknowledged that its approach had not been joined up. The landlord did not submit a survey request until 13 May 2024, which was unreasonable given its previous failings, and it did not complete the survey until 24 May 2025. The landlord committed to develop an action plan for the repairs after it completed the survey, but there is no evidence that it did so, or that it communicated this to the resident. We have not seen a copy of the survey report or action plan.
  10. The landlord’s records suggest that its contractor completed some works to the kitchen and a drainage survey on 24 September 2024. Subsequent works to the bathroom pipes were unsuccessful, resulting in further damage to the kitchen ceiling and light. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether it has now completed works to address the leaks, and the damage to the kitchen ceiling and light.
  11. In total, it took the landlord 159 calendar days from the first inspection on 31 August 2023 to replace the kitchen sink unit, however, the evidence suggests that the leak remained unresolved at that time. Taking into account that the delays between 8 December 2023 and 6 February 2024 were due to issues contacting the resident, we calculate that there was a total delay of 71 calendar days in completing works to the kitchen sink unit, beyond the 28 calendar days specified in the landlord’s repairs policy for non-urgent repairs. In our view, this delay could have been avoided had the landlord communicated better with the resident and its contractor. Although it is clear the landlord has taken some action to investigate and remedy the other repairs issues, there is no evidence that it has completed all necessary works to address the leak and associated repairs.
  12. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak and associated repairs. The landlord’s communication with the resident and its contractor was poor. Although there were evidently access issues that contributed to the delay, the landlord did not do enough to co-ordinate and progress the works, in order to meet its repairs obligations.
  13. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident a total of £940 to recognise the adverse effect of its repairs handling failings, including in relation to the overgrown ivy and window repairs. It said that this amount took into account the resident’s vulnerability, the time and trouble taken, and the stress and inconvenience caused. The landlord acknowledged repairs reports going back to December 2022.
  14. In our view, the landlord’s offer of £940 to the date of the final complaint response was appropriate in relation to this aspect of the complaint, excluding the overgrown ivy and window repairs, which are dealt with separately below. However, the landlord committed to provide an action plan and to resolve the repairs issues as part of its resolution to the complaint. There is no evidence that it did this, or that it has now completed all required works. An additional amount of compensation is therefore appropriate to recognise the further, avoidable delays after the final complaint response.
  15. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1,690 in recognition of the adverse effect of the failings identified. This includes the £940 offered at stage 2 of its internal complaints process, and an additional £750. The £750 is calculated at £50 per month, or half month, for the period between 1 May 2025 and 17 July 2025, when the landlord’s records show an appointment was booked for further works. We recognise that this amount is in excess of the £1,000 limit for cases where there is a finding of maladministration, as set out in our remedies guidance. However, we have not made a finding of severe maladministration in this case, as the landlord has made some attempts to put things right. The additional compensation beyond that offered at stage 2 is intended to recognise the adverse effect on the resident of any additional, avoidable delay.
  16. This order for compensation replaces the offer of compensation made in the landlord’s final complaint response. Any compensation already paid to the resident in respect of the complaint may be deducted from the amount ordered.
  17. The landlord is also ordered to apologise to the resident, and to write to her, and to us, to confirm whether the source of all leaks into the kitchen have now been identified and repairs completed. The landlord should also confirm whether there are any outstanding works required to the kitchen ceiling and light fitting and arrange for these to be completed if required.

Overgrown ivy

  1. It is not clear from the evidence provided when the resident first reported overgrown ivy and damage to her windows to the landlord. We cannot see any evidence that the resident reported the overgrown ivy to the landlord before her formal complaint. We note that the landlord’s final complaint response referred to repairs reports dating back to December 2022, but we do not know which repairs issues these reports related to. In the absence of this information, we have taken the date that we referred the resident’s complaint to the landlord, which was 8 December 2023, as the first report.
  2. At that time, we do not know whether the landlord was aware of the extent of the issue, or that the resident was unable to secure her windows. Had the landlord been aware that the resident was unable to close her windows, we would have expected it to attend to make the property secure within 24 hours, in line with the emergency repair timeframes in its Responsive Repairs Policy. As there is no evidence that it was aware the property was not secure, it was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to treat the repair as non-urgent, requiring a response within 28 calendar days.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 22 December 2023 referred to an appointment for window repair that was cancelled by its contractor because the ivy needed to be removed. It said its contractor had been unable to get in touch with the resident to arrange to have the ivy removed. The landlord has not provided evidence of the date of the original window repair appointment. Its records show that it attempted to contact the resident on 11 December 2023 and 19 December 2023 but there are no notes explaining whether this was in relation to the ivy.
  4. The landlord has not provided any evidence of communications with its contractors about the works, and so we are unable to conclude on the available evidence that it acted appropriately to progress the ivy removal and any required window repairs. The landlord is reminded of the need to keep full and accurate repairs records, including details of appointments, and communications with the resident and its contractor. The lack of sufficiently detailed records provided to us has hindered our ability to investigate this aspect of the complaint.
  5. The resident has provided evidence that she contacted the ivy removal contractor by text message on 22 January 2024 to ask it to call her back. She then contacted the landlord on 1 February 2024 to report that the contractor had not replied to her text, and she had been receiving calls from them at unsociable hours. The landlord’s notes from 15 February 2024 record that the works were still outstanding and the resident had not heard from the contractor. In our view, the landlord should have first inspected the ivy and windows before raising repairs. Had it done so, it may have identified that the property was not secure and that it should remove the ivy and complete any required repairs urgently.
  6. The landlord failed to adequately manage these works. We expect landlords to communicate effectively with their contractors to monitor the progress of repairs, particularly where a resident has reported difficulties with communication. The evidence provided does not show that the landlord acted reasonably to progress the works. Its failure to do so meant that the resident contacted us to escalate her complaint. We asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 20 March 2024.
  7. In its stage 2 complaint response, sent to the resident on 1 May 2024, the landlord said that it needed to arrange for a surveyor to attend to assess the ivy before it could appoint a new contractor. On 12 May 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to express her dissatisfaction with the complaint response. In this email, she told the landlord that she was unable to close her windows because of the overgrown ivy. Once the landlord was aware that the property was not secure, it should have contacted the resident and arranged an emergency appointment to “make safe” the property. There is no evidence that it attempted to do so.
  8. A surveyor attended to inspect the property on 24 May 2024, but the landlord has not provided the surveyor’s report, and so we cannot assess whether the landlord complied with any recommendations made. There are various repairs records between 8 July 2024 and 20 August 2024, but it is not clear what works they relate to.
  9. According to the landlord’s records, its contractor completed works to remove the overgrown ivy on 20 August 2024. It is not known whether window repairs were also completed and the property secured at this time. This was over 8 months after the landlord first became aware of the issue, and almost 4 months after its final complaint response. There was a considerable delay in completing the works, beyond the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
  10. In its final complaint response, the landlord accepted that its communication with its contractor about works to deal with the overgrown ivy and repair the windows had been poor. It apologised for its failings, noting that it had recently taken steps to improve its repairs service. It also committed to produce an action plan following the survey, and to complete any outstanding works. This was appropriate in the circumstances and in line with our dispute resolution principles, which say that landlords should acknowledge where things have gone wrong and attempt to put things right.
  11. The landlord referred to difficulties contacting the resident to arrange the works, noting that she had been hospitalised for some time. We have not seen evidence of the landlord’s, or its contractor’s, attempts to contact the resident between the stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. The landlord’s records do not evidence that it made appropriate and sufficient efforts to contact the resident to progress the repairs.
  12. In our view, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of overgrown ivy affecting the property’s windows. This is because of the unnecessary and avoidable delay, and the poor communication with both the resident and its contractor. The landlord offered compensation of £940 for the delay in completing all of the repairs that were the subject of the complaint, up to the date of the final complaint response. In our view, compensation of £400 is appropriate to recognise the effect on the resident of the delays in dealing with the overgrown ivy and repairs to her windows. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for maladministration that adversely affected the resident. In the absence of evidence that the resident reported these issues before the formal complaint, this is calculated as £50 per month between 8 December 2023 and 20 August 2024.
  13. The orders for compensation made in this report replace the landlord’s offer of compensation made in the final complaint response. The landlord may deduct any compensation already paid to the resident in respect of this complaint from the amount ordered.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy says that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. At stage 1, it will respond within 10 working days, and at stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days.
  2. The resident says that she made a formal complaint to the landlord on 18 August 2023 about disrepair at the property, including a leak causing damage to the kitchen sink unit. We have not been provided with a copy or record of the resident’s communication with landlord on that date, and so we cannot conclude that the landlord failed to act at that time.
  3. On 16 November 2023, the resident and the landlord exchanged emails about its failure to complete repairs to the kitchen cupboard. The resident highlighted her vulnerability and referred to a complaint made 20 days ago. When it received the resident’s email, the landlord should have raised a complaint if it had not already done so. Instead, it asked the resident to confirm whether she wished to raise a complaint. In our view, this was unnecessary, as she had already expressed dissatisfaction with its service and stated that she had complained. The landlord’s failure to raise a complaint at this time contributed to the complaint handling delays and may have contributed to the delay in resolving the repairs issues. The resident approached us to ask us to raise a complaint on her behalf, which should not have been necessary. However, the landlord then responded to our 8 December 2023 complaint on behalf of the resident within 10 working days on 22 December 2023.
  4. At stage 2, the landlord did not acknowledge the request to escalate until 10 working days after it was received. It provided its final complaint response on 1 May 2024, which was 29 working days after we asked it to escalate the complaint on 20 March 2024. This was outside of the timescales set out in its Complaints Policy. In its final complaint response, the landlord identified that there had been significant complaint handling delays. It apologised for the delay in escalating and acknowledging the complaint at stage 2. It identified that it had failed to account for the resident’s vulnerabilities and ill health, and that it failed to offer redress at stage 1. The fact that the landlord identified and reflected on its failings demonstrated a commitment to learn from the complaint.
  5. In total, the landlord offered £600 compensation to recognise the significant effect of its poor complaint handling on the resident. This sum is the maximum level of redress available under our remedies guidance where there has been maladministration that has adversely affected a resident, but there has been no permanent effect. Taken together with the landlord’s apology and reflection on lessons learned, we consider that the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident in recognition of its poor complaints handling that satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.
  6. When the landlord responded to our information request it said that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The evidence provided by the landlord shows multiple references to the resident’s vulnerabilities and lists several medical conditions. It also referred to its failure to account for the resident’s vulnerabilities in the final complaint response. The landlord should clearly record the resident’s status as a vulnerable tenant on its systems, to make sure this is taken into account when considering how to provide its services. We therefore recommend that the landlord review its records to make sure that the resident’s vulnerabilities are appropriately recorded on its systems.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in her kitchen and repairs to the cupboards, ceiling, and light.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of overgrown ivy affecting the property’s windows.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident that, in the Ombudsman’s view, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. 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 £1,690 in recognition of the effect of the avoidable delay in identifying the source of the leak and completing repairs to the kitchen cupboards, ceiling, and light.
    3. Pay the resident £400 in recognition of the effect of the delay in completing works to address the overgrown ivy, which was affecting the property’s windows.
    4. Write to the resident, copied to the Ombudsman, to explain whether it has now identified the source of the leaks into the resident’s kitchen, and completed all works required to address the leak and associated damage. If further investigations or works are required, the landlord should set out a clear action plan and timetable for completing this.
  2. The landlord may deduct any compensation already paid to the resident in respect of this complaint from the total amount ordered.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reoffer the £600 offered to the resident in its final complaint response in recognition of the adverse effect of its poor complaints handling, if this has not already been paid to her.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord review its systems to make sure that the resident’s vulnerabilities are clearly and accurately recorded.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord review its record keeping policies and procedures to make sure clear, detailed, and accurate records of all repairs appointments and communications with residents and its contractor are recorded on its systems, in line with our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.