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 (202400092)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400092

Peabody Trust

27 August 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 the resident’s request for an outside tap.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident became an assured tenant of the property, a one-bedroom bungalow, following a starter tenancy in 2021. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The landlord has no recorded resident vulnerabilities but has provided a copy of an Occupational Therapist (OT) report from 1 September 2023. The OT said the resident had arthritis in her spine, hips and shoulders, and mobility and respiratory issues.
  3. The landlord arranged a survey following the OT report and, on 29 February 2024, raised a repair to an outside tap. It later cancelled this as the contractor said the resident did not have an outside tap, but had asked for one to be installed.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 12 March 2024 saying she believed it was considering installing an outside tap. She said she needed one as algae was growing on the patio, which was slippery when wet and a health and safety risk. The landlord replied that day to say it had already explained it did not have a budget to install outside taps and she would need to do so herself.
  5. In the resident’s response she said she was severely disabled and worried about the cost of the installation. She complained about the time it was taking to deal with her complaint on 6 May 2024 (although we have not seen evidence of a formal complaint having been made at this point).
  6. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 29 May 2024 it reiterated that the resident could install an outside tap at her own cost, and it would only repair wear and tear of existing property features. It signposted her to further home improvement information.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 June 2024 for confirmation it had escalated her complaint (again, no evidence provided of an initial escalation request having been made).
  8. An inspection of 12 July 2024 found the patio was free from algae and there were no OT recommendations to install an outside tap.
  9. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 6 August 2024. It said it would install an outside tap if the resident provided supporting medical evidence, as it could only do so where there was a demonstrated vulnerability or need. It confirmed she could install the tap herself if she did not need it for medical reasons. It acknowledged delays in repairs, replying to her enquiries and complaint handling, and awarded a total of £450 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of request for an outside tap

  1. The purpose of the September 2023 OT report was to support an unrelated recommendation for ventilation adaptations. This issue forms part of 2 other complaints brought to us by the resident (202317572 and 202422476). This report does not comment on the subject matter of those complaints.
  2. The OT reported that the resident could walk independently inside but used a stick outdoors. They said she could be unsteady and had ‘tripped’ indoors and outdoors on her patio area but found the galvanised rail fitting along her garden path helpful. It is, therefore, concerning that the landlord has told us it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. Landlords should ensure their records are up to date and accurately reflect any considerations that should be taken into account when providing services to their residents.
  3. An unrelated complaint response from the landlord said a surveyor visited the property following the OT report and made recommendations on 29 February 2024 (the landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the survey or the recommendations). The resident believes the surveyor agreed to install an outside tap using water from the tank in the loft. The landlord has not provided records to confirm this but it did raise a repair for an outside tap the same day.
  4. The landlord’s responses of 12 March and 29 May 2024 were inappropriate and unsympathetic. Evidence suggests the resident was told the landlord would not install an outside tap during an inspection on 31 January 2024. Again, the landlord has not provided a record of the inspection. However, the available evidence does support the resident’s recollection that the landlord may have been considering whether it could fund the installation of an outside tap at some point.
  5. We understand the landlord’s stance not to routinely install outside taps. The tenancy agreement says it would only need to maintain any existing water installation and keep it in good repair. However, the landlord also has an Aids and Adaptations (A&A) policy.
  6. This defines A&As as alterations or improvements carried out on a disabled resident’s home or communal area to enable them to continue to carry out day to day activities. The landlord was aware of the resident’s disabilities and should have considered whether it should fund the installation under its A&A policy. We have not seen a record that it did so at that point and this was a service failure.
  7. Further, the resident had reported algae on the patio that was slippery when wet. Landlords have a duty to ensure their properties are free from hazards. This includes risks of falls on level surfaces such as paths. Landlords should investigate such reports and assess whether there are issues such as inadequate drainage or excess surface water that may be contributing to the hazard, remedying them where necessary.
  8. The landlord should have arranged to inspect the patio (and carry out any subsequent repairs) within 28 calendar days of the report. There is no evidence it did. While it is positive the landlord surveyed the property after the resident escalated her complaint, this was 94 days later than it should have. This delay represents another failure in service which compounded the detriment to the resident.  
  9. The landlord reiterated its position not to install an outside tap in its stage 2 response. It is not our role to decide if it should have installed one. Instead, we consider whether its decision to refuse the request was reasonable.
  10. The landlord’s A&A policy aims categorises A&As as minor (costing up to £2,000) or major (costing more than £2,000). It says it will only accept requests for major adaptations if an OT has assessed and recommended them. Residents can request minor adaptations themselves but the landlord may ask for appropriate supporting evidence, such as a letter from a GP.
  11. We asked the landlord whether it considered the installation of an outside tap as a minor or major adaptation. However, it was unable to confirm this as the work was not approved, so the cost was unknown. It is unclear how the landlord could effectively apply its A&A policy (and decide what evidence was needed to approve a request for A&A), if such work would already need to be approved before it could be assessed. This approach is extremely problematic and could result in a systemic issue which makes the A&A policy unusable.
  12. For this investigation, we have classified the installation as a minor adaptation, as we expect the cost would not exceed £2,000. This means the resident could request the adaptation herself, albeit the landlord could ask for supporting medical evidence.
  13. The landlord’s stage 2 response said the resident would need to demonstrate a need or vulnerability and provide medical evidence for it to install an outside tap. We understand why it may want an explicit recommendation from a healthcare professional before it would agree to fund the installation. However, this was not an absolute requirement and the resident could request the adaptation without such.
  14. The landlord’s response did not specify if an OT referral was necessary. It was vague and we understand why the resident questioned what further medical evidence was needed, given an OT had already confirmed her vulnerabilities. The landlord’s failure to explain what further evidence was needed caused the resident distress and frustration.
  15. The lack of explanation and supporting records is unacceptable and amounts to service failure. It makes it difficult to assess whether the landlord’s decision not to install the tap was reasonable as we have not seen a robust justification for it. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management says records should tell the full story of what happened and clearly state any decision made and the reasons for it, including any decision not to act.
  16. The resident went on to provide the outcome of a first-tier tribunal claim from 2012, in respect of a benefit decision. The Judge commented that the resident was virtually unable to walk and she was awarded a high-rate mobility component (of Disability Living Allowance) for an indefinite period. The resident also provided further evidence including a copy of the September 2023 OT report. She believed this would justify installing an outside tap.
  17. The landlord replied that day and said the OT report did not mention installing an outside tap as an A&A. Instead, it suggested the resident connect a portable hose attachment to her indoor tap. This suggests the landlord would not consider installing an outside tap unless an OT has explicitly requested this, which is at odds with its current A&A policy. We therefore order the landlord to:
    1. Review its A&A policy to ensure it clearly states how the landlord will determine whether a request for A&A is minor or major, and how it will then assess requests for minor A&A.
    2. Tell the resident specifically what evidence she would need to provide for her request for an outside tap to be approved.
  18. The landlord awarded £200 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident by delays resolving her initial enquiries and repairs. This was proportionate to the failings identified in respect of the inspection delays following the resident’s report of a potential hazard on 12 March 2024, and was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. This says it can make awards of up to £250 for service failures when there has been a low impact to the resident. The classification of low impact was reasonable as the surveyor found the outside path was free from algae (although evidence suggests the resident disputes this).
  19. However, despite the landlord’s appropriate offer of compensation, we cannot find it provided reasonable redress. This is because it has not recognised the communication and record keeping failures identified in this report or put them right. Therefore, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an outside tap.
  20. We order the landlord to pay £300 (inclusive of the £200 already awarded) for the failures. This is inline with our remedies guidance for when there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident. While the landlord has acknowledged some findings and attempted to put things right, it has not addressed the full detriment to the resident. We also order the landlord to review the resident’s personal record and ensure it accurately records her medical conditions and vulnerabilities.

Landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints in 20 working days.
  2. The resident said she intended to take the landlord’s decision not to install an outside tap further in her communications of 12 March 2024. We have not seen that she did so at that time, but she brought the issue to us on 19 March 2024. We were unable to deal with it as she had not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. This was in line with our dispute resolution principle of fairness. A landlord must be given the opportunity to respond to complaints and put things right before we can assess its handling of a situation.
  3. The resident outlined her complaint to the landlord on 6 May 2024. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued 5 days outside of its published time limit and was a failure in service. The response also said a surveyor could not access the property, but this contradicts other communications which said a surveyor attended and made recommendations on 29 February 2024.
  4. We do not know when the resident escalated the complaint. However, her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response was clear from her contact of 11 June 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge this until 3 July 2024 and the stage 2 response was not issued until 6 August 2024. This was 20 working days outside of its published time limit and was another failure in service.
  5. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  6. The landlord has acknowledged the delays replying to the resident’s complaints and awarded £250 for them. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of up to £100 when there has been a failure in service that did not significantly affect the overall outcome but caused time and trouble to the resident and delays getting things resolved. As the landlord openly acknowledged its errors and awarded more than double our suggested award, we find that it provided reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlords handling of the resident’s request for an outside tap.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any arrears) £300 compensation (inclusive of the £200 already awarded) for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of her request for an outside tap.
    3. Recorded the resident’s vulnerabilities on its systems.
    4. Contacted the resident and told her what evidence she would need to provide to justify the installation of an outside tap.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has reviewed its A&A policy to ensure it clearly states:
    1. How and when the landlord will determine whether a request for A&A is minor or major.
    2. How it will then assess the request if it is found to be for minor A&A, including what evidence will be needed.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £250 previously offered for its complaint handling failures, if it has not done so already. This recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this being paid.