Peabody Trust (202311461)

Decision
Case ID	202311461
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	28 November 2025

Background

1. The leaseholders live in a ground floor flat. They raised repeated concerns with the landlord about the communal area and damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

2. The leaseholders’ complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to damp, mould and associated repairs.
   2. Handling of the leaseholders’ request to remove tree stumps and level the ground.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaseholders’ reports of damp, mould and associated repairs.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaseholders’ request to remove the tree stumps and level the ground.
6. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for its handling of the leaseholders’ complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. There were delays in carrying out repairs. The landlord apologised but did not offer compensation for this. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider compensation.
8. There were delays in addressing the leaseholders’ concerns about the tree stumps and unlevelled ground.
9. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in line with its complaints policy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the leaseholders for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 06 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the leaseholders £650 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. This includes: £500 for its handling of damp and mould issues. £150 for its handling of the uneven ground and tree stump.	06 January 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
If not done already, the landlord must pay the leaseholders the £500 compensation offered in its stage 2 response.
The landlord should contact the leaseholders to discuss their concerns about the ongoing maintenance of the gutters.
The landlord should signpost the leaseholders to its insurers if they wish to pursue potential claims for damage caused by damp and mould.
The landlord should write to the leaseholders to clarify its position regarding the tree stumps.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 July 2023	The leaseholders raised a complaint about: Tree stumps outside the property. Uneven ground. Holes in the external brickwork and roof tiles missing which was causing mould. They said this had damaged their personal belongings. Poor communication from the landlord.
10 October 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It explained: It spoke with the leaseholders in August to clarify the list of outstanding works. This included concerns about the tree stump and unlevelled ground. That its contractors would not handle the tree stump removal. It said it would contact a tree services company who would be in touch with the leaseholders.
9 February 2024	The leaseholders requested for their complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord escalated this on 29 February 2024.
8 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It explained: Its contractors cleared the gutters of pigeon mess. Its contractors would attend to repair the gutter. It spoke to its health and safety team about the tree stump and uneven ground. It said it would remove the stump and level the ground. It agreed to render the leaseholders’ property, but said its contractors needed to attend first to do an assessment. It was unable to make progress with the roofing repairs as the landlord had to follow a section 20 process due to the costs involved. It carried out damp and mould treatments, however this was usually the leaseholders’ responsibility. It apologised for the delay in responding to the leaseholders’ complaints. It did not offer compensation for communal issues. But it offered compensation for its poor customer service, communication and delays in escalating the leaseholder’s complaint. It offered: –       £200 for time, trouble and inconvenience. –       £300 for poor complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The leaseholders brought the complaint to us and said: External communal repairs remained outstanding. Communication with the landlord was poor.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Damp, mould and associated repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

10. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the building, this includes the roof and gutter. The leaseholders’ lease agreement also states this.

Gutters.

11. On 26 September 2023 the landlord halted gutter and roof repairs after discovering pigeons were nesting on the roof. Pest control inspected the roof on 24 October 2023. The contractor recommended a bio clean, the removal of pigeons and to block accessible entry points. Repairs records show the landlord completed the pest control works on 22 April 2024.
12. The landlord has not explained why it took five months to resolve this matter. While we acknowledge that pest control works were necessary before repairs could safely continue, we consider the length of time to resolve the matter to be unreasonable. This contributed to delays in the landlord addressing associated repairs.
13. In May 2024 the landlord said it would arrange for gutters to be repaired. The landlord’s records do not confirm whether a repair was carried out. This means there is no evidence that the landlord completed its repair obligations. 
14. The leaseholders arranged for an independent survey to be carried out in November 2024. This was shared with the landlord. The survey confirmed the gutter repair was outstanding. The landlord’s repair record shows it raised a work order in March 2025, however the work remained outstanding until May 2025.
15. The landlord’s delay in resolving the issue was unreasonable. This exceeded its repair timescale and caused distress to the leaseholders. We have not seen that it explained this delay, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to keep the leaseholders updated during this time.
16. The leaseholders also raised concerns about the ongoing cleaning and maintenance of the gutters. The landlord’s policies and lease agreement do not specify that the landlord is obliged to put a schedule in place. However under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 landlords are responsible for maintaining the exterior of the property. The landlord should consider regular cleaning and consult with its leaseholders about any proposal and the associated costs as needed.

Damp and mould.

17. The landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation policy states leaseholders are responsible for internal repairs. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the communal area and for structural building defects.
18. Despite the leaseholders raising concerns about damp and mould in July 2023, external repairs to the gutter and roof remained outstanding for a significant period. The delay was initially due to the landlord needing to remove pests from the roof. In February 2024, the landlord identified that further external work was required to the brickwork. This caused additional delays, as it was necessary to carry out a Section 20 consultation to notify leaseholders of the costs involved. Repair records show that the consultation began in February 2024 and was approved in August 2024.
19. While we understand that section 20 processes can extend timescales, the landlord still had a responsibility to manage the repair proactively and keep the leaseholder updated. We are not satisfied this was done. Given the first reported concerns were in 2023, we consider the length of time taken to progress the damp and mould repairs to be unreasonable.
20. The repair records show that in February 2024 the contractors had stated the damp and mould work in the leaseholders’ property was caused by the external wall brickwork. The landlord agreed to carry out a damp and mould treatment. While the steps the landlord took were positive, the repairs to resolve the cause of damp remained outstanding, which caused distress and inconvenience to the leaseholder. 
21. The landlord informed the leaseholders in May 2024 that it was unable to make progress with repair works until the section 20 consultation had been approved. The repair records show this was approved in August 2024. The landlord carried out a further inspection. The operative said scaffolding would be needed around the house to locate and rectify any cracks and missing pointing.
22. Due to the ongoing damp and mould issues, the leaseholder requested an independent survey, which was completed in November 2024. This found:

• External observations
  1. The gutter around the property was missing or defective.
  2. The render had deteriorated which could allow pooling rainwater to absorb through the walls.
  3. Some sections of the wall had missing pointing.
• Internal observations
  1. The high moisture readings detected were likely to be caused by penetrating damp.
  2. The mould found could be linked to condensation issues, however this would be exacerbated by the external defects. 

23. The landlord took steps to address the external defects, but as the roof, rendering and gutter repair were not completed until 2025, we consider the overall timescales to have been unreasonably long.

Damage to personal belongings.

24. The leaseholders informed the landlord that the water ingress was causing mould damage to their walls and belongings. We have not seen that the landlord informed the leaseholder of the process to make a claim through its insurers.
25. The landlord expects leaseholders to have their own insurance. However in cases where personal belongings damage may have been a result of an external defect, it would be appropriate for the landlord to signpost the leaseholders to their insurers for a fair assessment to be completed. We have not seen evidence to show this was done.

Summary.

26. The landlord’s stage 2 reply said it was unable to compensate the leaseholders in relation to communal repairs. Howeverthe communal issues remained outstanding for a significant period and impacted the leaseholders causing distress and inconvenience. Considering the multiple failures identified, we have found maladministration and compensation is appropriate. We have made an order in line with our remedies guidance to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the leaseholders.

Complaint	Request to remove tree stumps and level the ground.
Finding	Maladministration

27. The leaseholders’ lease agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for the communal area. Therefore when the leaseholders made a report about the ground being uneven and tree stumps being a trip hazard, the landlord was obliged to investigate.
28. The landlord’s tree policy states that when a tree is felled, the resulting stump will be treated with herbicide to minimise regrowth. It does not specify what the landlord would do in cases where its leaseholders say this poses a health and safety risk.
29. The landlord removed trees located in the communal area in August 2022. Between October 2022 and November 2024 the leaseholders repeatedly raised concerns about the uneven ground and stumps.
30. In June 2023 an operative confirmed that the ground was uneven where the trees were cut. The operative said the landlord needed to allocate the issue to the green team. The landlord did not record whether this was done. The landlord’s failure to record evidence was unreasonable, as it prevented the issue from being monitored or progressed.
31. A contractor visited the property in September 2023 but could not remove the tree stump without a tree digger. The landlord did not arrange this or update the leaseholders, which left them continuing to chase works.
32. The landlord did not take proactive steps to resolve the matter. This is unreasonable and caused avoidable distress to the leaseholders.
33. In May 2024 an operative again found the area to be uneven. A contractor attended in July 2024 but could not complete the works and said this needed to be passed to a landscaper.
34. The landlord did not take appropriate action after its contractor cancelled the appointment. It should have followed up and told the leaseholders about next steps, but did not, which resulted in them chasing further.
35. In April 2025 a technical inspection confirmed the ground was still very uneven. The contractor said that a further survey was required to advise what works were needed or if this needed to be referred to estate services. The landlord’s records do not confirm if a further survey was carried out.
36. The repair records confirm the issue was reported again in May 2025. Contractors completed works in July 2025 to concrete the whole driveway and the contractor confirmed the communal area was safe.
37. We find there was a significant failure to address the matter in a reasonable timeframe. This is concerning as the leaseholders had reported that people had fallen over the uneven ground. During this period the landlord’s communication was poor, often leading the leaseholders to chase the landlord. This caused avoidable distress and inconvenience.
38. Overall we find there has been maladministration. We have made an order in line with our remedies guidance to reflect the distress and impact caused to the leaseholders.
39.  The leaseholders state that the issues concerning the tree stumps remain unresolved. The landlord has not provided its position on this matter. Records show that in July 2025 the contractor confirmed the area was safe. While it is not our role to determine whether the tree stumps should be removed, we consider it is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional assessment of its contractors. As the leaseholders have continued to raise concerns about this, it would be appropriate for the landlord to communicate its position to them in writing, so they have clarity on the matter.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint.
Finding	Reasonable redress

40. The landlord aims to log complaints within 5 working days. It will aim to respond to a stage 1 complaint in 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint in 20 working days. If the landlord needs additional time to respond, it will notify and agree this with the resident. The policy says the landlord will not extend more than 10 working days.  
41. The landlord did not respond to both complaints within the expected timescale. The leaseholders were chasing for a response during this time. Its communication was poor which resulted in avoidable distress and inconvenience for the leaseholders. The landlord did not act in accordance with its complaints policy.
42. In recognition of the delays the landlord apologised and offered the leaseholders £500 compensation. We find this amount to be fair and proportionate for the distress and inconvenience the delays caused. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication.

43. The landlord’s communication and record keeping was poor throughout the complaints process and repairs. It should ensure that it provides timely updates, explaining reasons for delays and expected timescales as to when it aims to resolve matters.
44. In its stage 2 response the landlord explained it reminded its staff to maintain clear communication about repair progress. It confirmed it was improving its internal processes and staff training to ensure better handling of complaints. This is positive and demonstrated willingness to improve its services to prevent such service failures in the future.