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 (202446469)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202446469

Peabody Trust

29 September 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s tenancy agreement which included issues with:
      1. Adherence to a judge’s order.
      2. Loss of paperwork.
      3. Issuing a new tenancy agreement.  
    2. Repairs to the:
      1. Front door.
      2. Heating.
      3. Intercom.
      4. Bathroom.
      5. Windows.
    3. Reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB).
    4. The associated formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 41.c. states that we cannot consider complaints which concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given. After carefully considering the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 41.c. of the Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside our jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s tenancy agreement, which included issues with:
      1. Adherence to a judge’s order.
      2. Loss of paperwork.
      3. Issuing a new tenancy agreement.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a block. The landlord is aware the resident suffers with his mental health. The resident has used a representative to correspond with the landlord and our service in relation to the complaint. The resident and his representative will be referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
  2. For further context, the resident signed a joint tenancy agreement with his ex-partner (unclear exactly when), but she moved out around 2009.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 2 February 2025 by webform. He also said he sent the complaint by post. He said:
    1. His:
      1. Front door had not been repaired after the landlord forced entry years earlier when he lost his keys.
      2. Heating did not function.
      3. Intercom had not worked for over a year.
      4. Bathroom had been damaged by a leak from the property above.
      5. Windows “whistle and howl.”
      6. Neighbour was mentally unstable, had threatened to kill him, and played music with a repetitive mantra over a loudspeaker through the wall.
    2. He had been taken to court 3 times over rent arrears. A judge had ordered the landlord to “locate missing tenancy paperwork to assist in clearing as much of the rent arrears as possible.” However, he:
      1. Had been told the paperwork was destroyed.
      2. Said the rent arrears were caused by the missing paperwork he believed were destroyed or lost by the landlord in 2020.
  4. The resident contacted us on 16 February 2025 after no response from the landlord. He complained to the landlord again on 6 April 2025. He said:
    1. No action had been taken in relation to the:
      1. Front door.
      2. Heating.
      3. Bathroom. 
    2. He had reported his neighbour to the landlord and the police because his neighbour:
      1. Had threatened his life on 3 occasions.
      2. Played “Nazi patriotism music loudly” late at night.
    3. The key issue in relation to the tenancy agreement was the landlord had not processed the change of tenancy from joint to sole after his ex-partner moved out.
  5. The landlord contacted relevant departments the following day and sent its stage 1 response a month later on 7 May 2025. It said:
    1. It had not logged the complaint made on 2 February 2025, and apologised there was no response.
    2. It acknowledged the resident was caused financial difficulty and mental distress due to the rent arrears. This was because he was responsible for rent under a joint tenancy, despite the fact his ex-partner had moved out.
    3. The front door issue was reported in May 2024. Its contractors fixed the handle in July 2024 but noted a new door was required. No further action was taken until January 2025 when a further report was made about the door. It was waiting for a quote to be approved for a new front door.
    4. Its records showed heating issues had been reported once in May 2024 when its contractors attended and reset the service timer. But following the resident’s further reports the heating did not function, it had requested a heat loss survey.
    5. It had raised an intercom repair.
    6. It attended in February 2025 and completed a deep clean to the bathroom after reports of flood damage from the property above. It acknowledged the resident wanted the ceiling redecorated but no further action was taken. It apologised and said it had arranged for a surveyor to attend.
    7. It did not have any record of concerns raised in relation to windows prior to the complaint. However, it had also asked the surveyor to inspect the windows.
    8. The ASB aspect of the complaint was being dealt with under a separate reference number. It provided contact details for the staff member dealing with the concerns.
    9. It offered £450 compensation made up of:
      1. £300 for distress and inconvenience caused by lack of action in relation to the front door.
      2. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused in relation to the lack of action taken following the bathroom damage.
      3. £50 time and trouble for failing to log the complaint on 2 February 2025.
  6. The resident replied to the landlord the same day and said:
    1. He had reported repairs on multiple occasions but had “lost faith in the process.”
    2. The intercom had already been repaired.
    3. The compensation was not proportionate to the severity and duration of the experience.
    4. He had suicidal thoughts due to the extreme emotional distress over a prolonged period.
  7. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 13 May 2025. The resident emailed the landlord on 22 May 2025 to chase the acknowledgment of the complaint escalation and accept the £450 compensation.
  8. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 June 2025 and said:
    1. He was still waiting for:
      1. A replacement front door.
      2. Bathroom repairs.
      3. Window repairs.
    2. His neighbour continued to “terrorise” other residents in the block and play “Nazi patriotism music” throughout the day and night.
    3. His ex-partner had been contacted in relation to a repair which was “extremely inappropriate and upsetting for both parties.” Particularly as his ex-partner had not lived at the property for over 15 years.
  9. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 5 June 2025, in which it said:
    1. It apologised for its handling of the tenancy agreement and rent account. It:
      1. Provided a detailed timeline of events from December 2018 to date.
      2. Had submitted a joint to sole tenancy request to help put things right.
    2. A new front door was ordered and due by 1 August 2025. It apologised for the delays and said this should have been resolved after the repair in July 2024.
    3. Its contractor had recently attended and the heating issues had been resolved. As there was only one report of heating issues in the previous 12 months, it said there was no service failure.
    4. It had arranged for a contractor to contact him in relation to the intercom.
    5. In relation to the bathroom, it said:
      1. The resident had “refused some bathroom repairs” so its contractor had closed the work order.
      2. Its contractor tried to contact him on 3 occasions to arrange bathroom plastering repairs but had not had a response.
      3. It provided the contractors contact details and work order numbers so the resident could re-arrange the repairs.
    6. Its contractor attended on 22 May 2025 for window repairs but there was no access. It said the resident would also need to contact its contractor to re-arrange the appointment.
    7. It was sorry to hear about the issues with the neighbour. However, it noted:
      1. The issues were first reported on 1 April 2025 and it opened an ASB case.
      2. It visited the resident on 2 May 2025 and an action plan was put in place.
      3. Its ASB team tried to contact the resident on 14 May 2025, 4 and 5 June 2025, but were unsuccessful.
      4. It provided a contact number for the resident to access further support.
      5. It did not find any service failure with its ASB handling.
      6. It made a referral to its advice and wellbeing team after the resident’s comments around feeling suicidal.
    8. It sincerely apologised for difficulties and frustration experienced.
    9. It agreed to clear £3,961.55 in rent arrears covering the period from 23 March 2022 to 14 August 2024. However, the remaining balance of £2,708.66 remained the resident’s responsibility.
    10. It offered an additional £1,430 compensation made up of:
      1. £1,405 for distress and inconvenience.
      2. £25 for time and trouble.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The resident replied the next day and said:
    1. He was disheartened with the complaint response.
    2. A contractor attended on 5 June 2025 to fix the intercom, but this had already been done on 24 February 2025 as he had already highlighted.
    3. All outstanding issues except the heating remained unresolved.
    4. He did not refuse the bathroom repairs.
    5. He had severe telephone anxiety – particularly from unknown or withheld numbers.
    6. He would contact the contractor “when he felt able.”
  2. The resident accepted the £1,430 compensation on 10 June 2025.
  3. The landlord’s contractor emailed the resident on 12 June 2025 and said the bathroom plastering repair was booked for 18 June 2025. However, the resident was involved in a serious incident with his neighbour on 16 June 2025 when he was stabbed with a samurai sword/machete while trying to record noise from the neighbour’s flat. The resident said the neighbour also “stole his phone and smashed it.” The landlord:
    1. Booked the resident into a hotel for the following night.
    2. Emailed its contractor to re-arrange the bathroom plastering appointment.
    3. Cancelled a possession claim scheduled for 26 June 2025.
    4. Completed additional safety work to the resident’s property (new door chain and key barrel) around this time. This was to help make him feel safe following the incident.  
  4. The resident signed his amended tenancy agreement on 19 June 2025. The repair log showed the landlord’s contractor completed repairs to the windows, boiler, toilet and bathroom taps the following day.
  5. On 24 June the landlord’s contractor emailed the landlord and said it had spoken to the resident and he wanted to “put the bathroom plastering on hold as he was viewing another property.” The landlord met the resident the next day and:
    1. Offered NHS talking therapy services, counselling, and to contact another organisation that helps people who express suicidal ideation.
    2. Ordered the resident a new double bed and bedding from its resident support fund.

The next day it approved a priority move.

  1. The resident’s new front door was fitted on 26 August 2025.
  2. On 22 September 2025 the resident said:
    1. The bath panel repair had not been completed. It is unclear whether bathroom ceiling repairs were completed.
    2. The windows still “howled”.
    3. The landlord had offered him properties for a priority move but the properties offered were unsuitable or unaffordable.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told us about the impact the situation has had on his mental health. We empathise with his situation. But we also cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and his mental health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord.
  2. The resident has raised concerns about other issues which included with staff conduct and other repairs. However, there was no evidence of all the issues being raised consistently through the full complaints process. As a result, the landlord has not had a proper opportunity to investigate and resolve them. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of any other matters, he may wish to raise a new complaint and refer it to us in due course if necessary. This would then be dealt with as a separate complaint under a new reference number.
  3. We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of issues arising. This is so the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate. This investigation will consider events from 2 February 2024 (12 months prior to the resident’s first formal complaint) to 5 June 2025 when the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response.

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy provide timescales to conduct repairs dependent on the severity of the issue. It says that non–urgent repairs are completed within 28 calendar days. Programmed repairs and specialist works are completed within 60 calendar days.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy in place at the time said that it will consider compensation where there has been a failure to provide a service. It awards compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience dependent on the level of disruption caused. 

The landlord’s handling of repairs.

Front door

  1. The evidence showed the landlord repaired the resident’s front door 47 days after he reported a repair was required. This was outside the landlord’s timeframe for a non-urgent repair and was a failing.
  2. The repair log showed the landlord’s contractor recommended a new front door was required. The landlord requested a quote from its contractor for a new front door on 2 July 2024. It noted a new repair was needed once the quote was received. It was unclear what happened next, however there was no evidence any further action was taken. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to follow up the quote, however there was no evidence it did so, which was a failing.
  3. The repair log showed another repair raised for the front door on 31 January 2025. This was almost 7 months after the contractor had recommended a new front door, which was an unreasonable delay. The contractor attended on 12 March 2025, 40 days later, which was again outside the landlord’s repair timeframe. The contractor noted “the door frame is broken in so many places… it can’t be repaired [and] will need a new door.”
  4. There was no evidence the landlord took any action for another month. The repair log showed the landlord’s contractor visited on 15 April 2025 and again on 22 April 2025. The contractor recommended a front door replacement for the third time after the visit on 22 April 2025. The landlord approved the door on 8 May 2025 and its contractor ordered the door 4 days later. The new front door was fitted on 26 August 2025. This was over a year after the landlord was put on notice that a new front door was required, and almost 15.5 months after the resident reported the issue. While there would always have been a delay of 2-3 months while the door was being manufactured, this was an unreasonable length of time for the resident to have to wait for a new front door.
  5. However, it was positive the landlord used its complaint process to try and put things right in relation to the door. It offered £300 compensation in its stage 1 response for inconvenience up to 4 May 2025. The landlord then used its stage 2 response on 5 June 2025 to apologise, accept its failings, explain a new door had been ordered, and manage expectations in relation to the 10-12 week lead time. It also offered a further £1,405 for additional distress and inconvenience. The landlord did not break down how much of this was specifically for the door. However, in line with our remedies guidance, another £100 would be reasonable to make up for further distress and inconvenience caused in relation to the door.

Heating

  1. The landlord’s repair log showed it repaired the resident’s heating the same day an issue was reported on 16 May 2024. This was positive and in line with policy.
  2. There was no evidence of any further heating issues reported until the complaint made on 2 February 2025 which the landlord said it did not log. There was no evidence the resident chased the heating issue until the complaint was re-submitted over 2 months later. The next day, the landlord requested its gas team carry out a heat loss survey, which was prompt. It was unclear what happened with this, but a work order to investigate the heating was raised on 24 April 2025 which was positive and showed the landlord was trying to investigate the issue.
  3. The repair log showed the landlord’s contractor attended on 15 May 2025 and completed heating repairs. While this was completed 21 days after the repair was raised, it was 39 days after the resident had reported the heating issues. This was outside the landlord’s timeframe for a non-urgent repair, and was a failing.
  4. The landlord said it found no service failure in relation to the heating repairs in its stage 2 response. It was unclear from the records whether a heat loss survey was completed. Given the delays completing the heating repairs, and the landlord did not acknowledge any failure here, compensation is required to put things right. In line with our remedies guidance, £100 compensation would be appropriate.

Intercom

  1. The repair log showed the resident reported his intercom was broken on 19 August 2024. It was unclear what action was taken in relation to this.
  2. A second intercom repair was raised on 14 October 2024, 2 months later. However, this was cancelled on 22 October 2024 as the landlord had raised the repair with the wrong contractor, which was a failing.
  3. The communal repair log showed a third repair raised for the resident’s intercom on 4 February 2025. The notes showed a contractor attended promptly the next day and completed repairs on 21 February 2025. While this was in line with the landlord’s repair timeframe, it was at least 6 months after the resident reported his intercom did not work, which was an unreasonable delay.
  4. After the complaint was received on 6 April 2025, the landlord raised another intercom repair on 24 April 2025. In an email to the landlord on 7 May 2025, the resident said the intercom had already been repaired. However, the evidence showed the landlord continued to email its contractor for updates in relation to a repair that had already been completed.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised for the delay repairing the intercom, which was reasonable. The landlord did not break down how much of the £1,405 compensation was specifically for the intercom. But in line with our remedies guidance, £250 compensation would be reasonable to put things right for 6 months of delays and confusion caused by chasing a repair that had already been completed.

Bathroom

  1. The landlord’s repair log showed a deep clean raised on 31 January 2025 following a leak from the property above. It was unclear when this was completed, but notes showed a contractor attended on 6 February 2025. The contractor noted:
    1. The deep clean had already been completed.
    2. The resident wanted the water marks covered and a crack in the ceiling addressed.

However, there was no evidence of any further action until the resident re-submitted his complaint on 6 April 2025. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to follow up with the resident or contractor after the deep clean, or second contractor visit, however there was no evidence it did so. This could have provided an opportunity to explain its position regarding decorative repairs.

  1. After the complaint in April, the landlord referred the bathroom issues to its surveyor and offered £100 compensation for the lack of action in relation to bathroom repairs. This was a reasonable approach to take. The evidence showed the surveyor visited on 13 May 2025 and raised bathroom repairs the next day, which was prompt.
  2. The repair log showed the contractor called the resident’s ex-partner and left a message in relation to the bathroom repairs on 16 May 2025. The contractor then:
    1. Visited the resident’s property on 22 May 2025 but had no access.
    2. Cancelled the bathroom repairs after speaking to his ex-partner the same day.
    3. Noted the “tenant refused works” when this was not actually the case.
    4. Wrote to the resident on 27 May 2025 and asked him to contact them to arrange the plastering repair to the bathroom ceiling. It said the repair may be cancelled if it did not receive contact within 7 days.

It was unclear whether the resident re-arranged the bathroom repairs.

  1. Overall, the landlord attended promptly following the leak damage. However, there were then 2 months where nothing happened. After the re-submitted complaint, it was reasonable for the landlord to send its surveyor. The evidence showed the landlord’s contractor tried to attend to complete repairs shortly after repairs were raised. The landlord used its complaints process to try and put things right, which was positive. £100 compensation was reasonable for delays up to the 4 May 2025. The landlord used its stage 2 response to explain the contractor had tried to contact the resident, without success. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask if the resident wanted help rescheduling the appointments.
  2. In line with our remedies guidance, another £150 would be appropriate for further failings in relation to bathroom repairs between the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.

Windows

  1. Following the complaint, the landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to try and put things right for the resident. It arranged for its surveyor to attend on 13 May 2025 in relation to comments made about the window condition. While this was a reasonable approach to take, it was 5 weeks after the resident’s re-submitted complaint, which was slow. However, the surveyor attended as arranged and raised repairs the following day, which was prompt.
  2. The landlord attended to complete window repairs on 22 May 2025 but noted there was no access. The repair log showed it attended a month later on 20 June 2025 and completed window repairs. Overall, the landlord did not complete window repairs in line with its repairs policy timeframe. And 5 weeks for the surveyor to attend was a delay. There was therefore some minor failings which would require compensation to put right. An amount of £100 would be in line with our remedies guidance.

Overall

  1. The resident has been paid £1,805 compensation which covered distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs. He has been paid a further £75 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures totalling £1,880. The landlord has also bought the resident a new double bed and bedding. And cleared £3,961.55 in rent arrears.
  2. For the matters within our jurisdiction, we would have awarded £1,575 in compensation. While there were failings in this case, we find that the landlord has done enough to put things right in terms of the support it has offered, repairs it has completed, and compensation it has paid.
  3. Taking account of all the circumstances of the case, we find that the landlord’s response to the complaint (and the identified failings) was appropriate and proportionate, so a finding is made that the landlord had offered redress to the resident which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out behaviour it considers to be antisocial and how it responds to reports. It does not consider everyday living noise as ASB, but loud music and excessive noise are classed as ASB. The landlord is expected to establish at first contact whether the reported behaviour is ASB or otherwise and advise the resident accordingly.
  2. Where ASB is established, the policy requires the landlord to conduct a full risk assessment and a vulnerability assessment at the start, and then periodically thereafter. An action plan should be agreed within 5 working days. The policy says the landlord works with partner agencies like the local authority. The steps it can take to resolve reports include use of noise recording equipment or a noise app, interviews and visits, and mediation. The landlord is expected to record each report on its system along with details of the assessments, contact, action plans, and the resolution of each report.
  3. As previously mentioned, the resident first reported his neighbour to the landlord when he tried to complain on 2 February 2025. However, the landlord did not receive the complaint. There was no evidence of any further issues for around 2 months when the resident requested a call back from the landlord. The evidence showed the landlord contacted the resident and raised an ASB case on 1 April 2025, which was reasonable.
  4. After the resident complained a second time and mentioned his neighbour, the landlord noted the resident needed to be contacted regarding an action plan. However, there was no evidence of any action until almost a month later when it visited the resident on 2 May 2025 to complete an interview. While visiting the resident and agreeing an action plan were positive steps, there was no evidence the landlord agreed an action plan within 5 working days. And there was a month’s delay visiting the resident, which were failings.
  5. The evidence showed the landlord completed a risk and vulnerability assessment, which was positive. It was unclear when this was completed, but it noted:
    1. The issue to be low risk
    2. The resident wanted the noise to stop.
    3. It was working with the local authority noise team.

However, there was no evidence the risk and vulnerability assessment was periodically reviewed, which was not in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, and was a failing. Further to this, given the resident’s reports of the neighbour’s threats against his life on 3 and 6 April 2025, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider a higher risk level.

  1. The landlord took further positive steps throughout May 2025. The evidence showed it:
    1. Visited the resident again on 14 May 2025 and reviewed the case 2 days later.
    2. Tried to visit the resident’s neighbour and requested he contact the landlord.
    3. Said it would monitor the case.

These were all positive steps.

  1. The evidence showed the landlord tried to phone the resident on 4 June 2025 and emailed the following day. It said, “as it had not heard from him, it hoped everything had been ok.” The landlord used the stage 2 complaint response sent the same day to set out the steps it had taken in relation to the reported ASB. While this was reasonable, it failed to acknowledge the delayed action plan and failure to adequately take into consideration the neighbour’s threats to the resident’s life when considering the risk level.
  2. The landlord took some positive steps in dealing with the ASB reports. However, there were also some failings. A finding of maladministration would have been made. In line with our remedies guidance, compensation of £300 would have been appropriate. However, given the landlord offered £1,405, a further finding of reasonable redress is made.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. It states that it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. Each response can be extended by 10 working days with the consent of the complainant.
  2. The landlord paid £50 time and trouble for failing to log the complaint on 2 February 2025. It was appropriate the landlord acknowledged this failing as the complaint issues could all have been progressed 2 months earlier.
  3. The stage 1 response was sent in line with policy, which was positive. However, the wording in relation to the ASB caused some confusion as to whether the ASB reports would be considered as part of the complaint. The ASB case file reference number is the same format as a complaint reference which could cause confusion.
  4. The landlord paid a further £25 compensation for the 2 week delay assigning the complaint to stage 2 for a review. However, even if the landlord escalated the case to stage 2 on 7 May 2025 when the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the response, the stage 2 response would still have been sent within the policy timeframe, which was positive.
  5. Given the failure to log a complaint in the first instance, particularly when the resident said he sent the complaint by both webform and letter, confusion caused by wording in relation to ASB handling, and delays escalating the complaint, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. We would have awarded another £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by the failings. However, as above, the compensation already paid was reasonable. A final finding of reasonable redress is made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 41.c. of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s tenancy agreement which included issues with adherence to a judge’s order, loss of paperwork and issuing a new tenancy agreement is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should contact the resident to:
    1. Provide an update in relation to the ASB case. It would be reasonable for the landlord to complete an updated risk assessment at the earliest opportunity.
    2. Arrange a repair for the bath panel.