Peabody Trust (202332409)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332409

Peabody Trust

28 May 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of water ingress from the resident’s roof.
    2. Reports of pests.
    3. Reports about issues with the resident’s boiler.
    4. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom house.
  2. The resident first reported water ingress from the roof into her property in November 2022. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that it raised an order for this on 15 November 2022. The landlord’s operative attended on 25 May 2023 and noted that it would require scaffolding to carry out the roof repair.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord to raise a formal complaint on 14 June 2023. She said she reported the roof issues but the landlord had made no progress. She added that she reported rats and mice in her attic 3 weeks earlier but had heard nothing back. Finally, she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of boiler issues that she was experiencing. She said contractors came on 5 occasions in the previous month and she had to take time off work for this.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 21 June 2023. This only addressed the ongoing roof repairs. It said these were taking longer than expected and it would provide the resident with compensation once it completed the repairs.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 August 2023. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s progress on the roof repairs, noting she first reported this in November 2022. She said she raised problems with her boiler in February 2023 but was still awaiting a visit from the landlord. She was also unhappy that it had done nothing to address her concerns about pests.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 26 September 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint, finding that it acted outside of its repair timescales. It offered the resident £1,205 compensation for its failings. This consisted of £600 for distress and inconvenience, £100 for complaint handling failures, £280 for issues affecting her bathroom, £150 for the roof repair delay, £25 for the issues with her boiler and £50 for missed appointments.
  7. The resident replied to the landlord on 27 September 2023, saying she felt it had not properly considered the boiler aspect of her complaint. The landlord increased its offer of compensation by another £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the boiler reports. This took the total compensation to £1,455.
  8. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 13 December 2023, asking us to consider her complaint. She said that the landlord fixed holes in the roof but that pests were still entering the property through the drainage system. She said that she wanted the landlord to complete the repairs and to compensate her for the delays and the time and trouble she experienced. The resident told the Ombudsman in a recent phone call that the landlord had now resolved her boiler faults, but she has continued to experience water ingress from her roof, and pest problems.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

  1. The Ombudsman is only able to consider events which have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, or actions which the landlord committed to undertaking as part of the complaints process. The evidence available to the Ombudsman demonstrates that the landlord raised new works to investigate water ingress from the roof in March 2024. As the landlord has not investigated these actions as part of its complaints process, this has not formed part of our investigation. However, it has been noted for context that the resident has continued to experience water ingress from the roof.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about water ingress from the roof

  1. The landlord’s repair policy has several timescales for completing repairs. For emergency repairs, the landlord says it will attend within either 2 hours, 4 hours or 24 hours. For non-urgent repairs, it says it will complete works within 28 calendar days. For programmed repairs, described as works that require additional time due to manufacture, complexity or specialist trade, the landlord says it will complete works within 60 calendar days.
  2. The landlord has failed to provide the Ombudsman with its repair records for the time period covered in this complaint. The Ombudsman requested these directly from the landlord but it did not provide the correct records. This makes it difficult for the Ombudsman to determine exactly how often the resident reported issues and the specific actions taken by the landlord.
  3. The landlord acknowledged as part of its stage 2 complaint response that it had taken too long to respond to the resident’s reports about water ingress from her roof. The landlord’s own internal correspondence shows that it first raised a roof repair on 15 November 2022. It also noted that it did not mark this job as complete until 15 August 2023. This represented a significant delay.
  4. The landlord raised repairs to fix holes to the chimney on 15 August 2023 and completed those works 4 September 2023. The landlord’s internal correspondence in September 2023 noted that it believed it had resolved the roof issues when it completed these repairs.
  5. The resident mentioned to the landlord that the water ingress caused damage to the ceiling of her bathroom. The landlord did not perform any works to remedy the internal damage, or combat any signs of damp and mould, in the timescale covered by this complaint. It is unreasonable that the landlord failed to inspect the internal damage or raise works to address potential damp and mould caused by what will have been long term water ingress.
  6. The landlord’s lack of action in progressing the repair undoubtedly caused additional problems in the resident’s bathroom which it failed to resolve at the time. This will have caused additional distress and inconvenience for the resident. As part of its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it would raise works to make good any damage to the bathroom. The landlord’s evidence does not demonstrate that it fulfilled this commitment.
  7. The landlord recognised its failings with the roof repairs and offered a total of £1,080 for this (£280 for the issues affecting her bathroom, £150 for the roof repair delay, £50 for missed appointments and £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused). This compensation was proportionate and in line with what the Ombudsman would expect where there were serious failings by a landlord that had a severe long-term impact. However, the landlord’s failure to fulfil its commitment to address internal damage means the Ombudsman is unable to make a finding of reasonable redress.
  8. We have therefore determined that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about water ingress from the roof. It is unclear from the available evidence if the landlord did in fact make good any damage to the bathroom. The landlord should confirm in writing to the resident if it believes this remedial work remains outstanding and, if so, provide her with a schedule of works in line with its repair policy.
  9. The landlord should also calculate additional compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in performing follow-on works. The landlord should calculate this figure from the stage 2 complaint response to the date it completed the necessary follow-on works, or the date it projects to complete these if it has not yet done so.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about pests

  1. The landlord’s pest control policy says it ‘will take reasonably prompt action to manage pest infestations for which we are responsible’. It says it will ‘investigate all pest infestations in our care and supported housing properties, with proofing and prevention measures in communal areas and/or individual units where required’.
  2. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident first reported the infestation on 12 June 2023. Although the resident had mentioned reporting this 3 weeks prior, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of this. The landlord performed its first pest control works on 19 June 2023.  At this appointment, the contractor found rat droppings in the resident’s loft. They baited the kitchen, bathroom and bedroom.
  3. The landlord performed follow on visits on 26 June 2023 and 10 July 2023. Following the third visit, the contractors took away the bait traps as these did not reveal any further presence of pests. The landlord’s actions in performing this pest treatment were fair and represented a reasonable response to the resident’s reports.
  4. Whilst performing an inspection for other works, the landlord identified a hole in the chimney as a potential access point for rats to enter the resident’s loft. According to the stage 2 complaint response, this took place on 3 July 2023. The landlord has provided no records of this visit. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response says that it completed works to repair the hole in the chimney on 4 September 2023. The length of time for the landlord to complete the chimney repair was appropriate and in line with the timescales in its repairs policy for programmed repairs.
  5. When escalating her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord informed the resident that she continued to experience problems with pests. The landlord has said that it then raised a CCTV survey which it undertook on 13 September 2023. However, the landlord’s repair records have no evidence of a CCTV survey. This again indicates a failure by the landlord to properly manage the repair.
  6. The landlord has said that this survey identified a break in the pipework which the contractor believed may have allowed pest access. The landlord’s records do not indicate if, or when, it completed work to repair that break.
  7. The landlord’s records demonstrate that it performed another CCTV survey in April 2024 when new follow-on works were arranged. This was around 7 months after the landlord identified the possible entry point for rodents. It is unclear why the landlord did not complete timely follow-on works after the initial CCTV survey. The landlord’s lack of follow-up on its initial commitments again represents service failure.
  8. As part of its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it would co-ordinate the necessary works to make the property pest proof. As stated above, the evidence suggests landlord failed to do so. We have ordered compensation in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about issues with her boiler

  1. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with very limited information about the resident’s reports of issues with her boiler. The resident has said that she started reporting these in February 2023, and that the landlord attended on around 30 occasions. Due to the lack of documentary evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to determine exactly what actions the landlord took.
  2. The records the landlord have provided demonstrate its attendance only after the conclusion of the complaints process. The first appointment evidenced by the landlord took place on 26 October 2023. The landlord’s contractor changed the pressure sensor and said that they found no visible defects with the boiler.
  3. The earliest available evidence to the Ombudsman demonstrates that the resident reported a boiler problem to the landlord when raising her complaint on 14 June 2024. She mentioned that the landlord had attended on 5 occasions in the previous month and that the pressure faults left her without heating or hot water. The landlord’s evidence does not demonstrate it attended until at least 4 months later.
  4. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns at either stage 1 or stage 2 of the complaints process. Despite her raising concerns about the boiler when initially raising the complaint, and when escalating her complaint to stage 2, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it investigated these. The landlord acknowledged her reports in its stage 2 complaint response but the evidence does not demonstrate it did anything to follow up on this.
  5. The resident expressed disappointment following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. She said that the landlord failed to adequately address her boiler reports. Following this contact, the landlord raised the job to inspect and later perform repairs to the boiler on 26 October 2023. It also offered the resident £250 compensation (on top of the £25 offer it made in its stage 2 complaint response).
  6. Whilst it was positive that the landlord recognised the impact of the boiler repair delays, given these extended across at least 4 months (and potentially much longer) and the impact of the losses of heating and hot water, this was not a sufficient offer of redress.
  7. The landlord should therefore increase its offer of compensation to £400. This figure is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range where there has been a landlord failure that adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy has 2 stages. At stage 1, it will log the resident’s complaint within 5 working days and provide its complaint response within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord says it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and provide its response within a further 20 working days. The landlord’s policy also says that ‘residents are not required to provide their reasons for wishing to escalate their complaint’.
  2. At stage 1, the landlord provided its complaint response within 7 calendar days of receiving the resident’s complaint. This was in line with the timescales set out in its policy.
  3. The landlord’s evidence suggests that it did not follow its policy when the resident first asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord e-mailed her on 15 August 2023 to state that, as she had not followed the correct process, she would be unable to escalate her complaint. It also sent her several questions that she needed to answer to be able to do so. The landlord’s actions likely frustrated the resident and impacted her confidence in the complaints process. These actions were not in line with its complaints policy and represented service failure.
  4. As a copy of the original e-mail the resident sent to request the landlord escalate her complaint has not been provided to the Ombudsman. We are therefore unable to say exactly when she first escalated her complaint. The earliest available evidence is from 20 August 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 26 September 2023. This was a total of 26 working days which narrowly fell outside of the timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy.
  5. The landlord acknowledged its failings as part of its stage 2 response and offered £100 compensation for what it described as its ‘poor handling’ of her complaint. This was a reasonable figure of redress for failings identified. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends amounts in this range where there has been a ‘minor failure’ from the landlord.
  6. Although not forming part of this investigation, the landlord has provided evidence that the resident attempted to raise a new complaint about her continuing problems in January 2025. The landlord did not do so, but instead told the resident the case manager would be in touch to provide an update. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contacts the resident to confirm if she still wishes to raise a new complaint. If she does, it should deal with this in line with its complaints policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress from the resident’s roof.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of pests.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports about issues with the resident’s boiler.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord:
    1. Pays the resident £1,730 compensation, made up of:
      1. £1,080 the landlord offered in its stage 2 complaint for its handling of her reports about water ingress from the roof;
      2. £250 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by the failings in its handling of her pest reports;
      3. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of her reports about issues with her boiler (this is inclusive of its own offers totalling £275).
    2. Writes to the resident in order to:
      1. Apologise for the failures identified in this report.
      2. Confirm if it has now completed all follow-on works to rectify the internal damage caused by water ingress from the roof. If it has not, the landlord should write to the resident to arrange an appointment to complete this.
      3. Confirm if it has completed all necessary repairs for pest proofing works. If it has not, it should write to the resident to arrange an appointment to complete this.
    3. Calculates additional compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay performing follow-on works to repair the roof and the subsequent internal damage. This should be calculated from the date of the stage 2 complaint response to the date that the landlord either completed the works or is scheduled to.
    4. Provides evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done so.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £100 it offered specifically for complaint handling failures as part of its stage 2 complaint response. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based upon this amount being paid to the resident.
  2. The landlord should contact the resident to confirm if she wishes to raise a new complaint as per her correspondence to it in January 2025. If the resident does wish to raise a new complaint, it should deal with this in line with its complaints policy.