Peabody Trust (202421708)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421708

Peabody Trust

5 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Leaks, damp, and mould.
2. Radiator repairs.
3. A flea infestation.
We will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives with her son in a 2-bed, ground floor flat within a converted house. There is flat above the resident’s. The resident is represented in her complaint to the landlord and the Ombudsman by her son. For clarity the report refers to both the resident and the representative as ‘the resident’.
On 11 January 2023 the resident made a complaint (Complaint 1) about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould. She said while the landlord had treated the mould, it had returned. The landlord did not respond to this complaint.
The resident made another stage 1 complaint on 24 October 2023 (Complaint 2). She said she was unhappy with the length of time it was taking the landlord to resolve the damp and mould and with its “poor communication”. She said she had had to chase the landlord “numerous” times for updates.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 2 on 9 November 2023. It said it had completed a mould treatment, replaced the bathroom extractor fan, and had raised further works to address the damp and mould. However, the landlord acknowledged its service had been “sub-par”. It offered her £200 compensation.
On 18 July 2024 the resident made a further complaint (Complaint 3). She said she had not heard from the landlord since her previous complaint. She said the damp was worsening and she was experiencing leaks from the flat above and from the chimney. She also said 2 of the radiators were not working and they had a flea infestation. The landlord did not respond to this complaint.
The resident asked the landlord on 7 February 2025 and 14 February 2025 (Complaint 4) to raise a new stage 1 complaint. She said water was coming from the flat above into her bathroom and kitchen and was affecting the electrics. The landlord did not log these as a complaint.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman and advised the landlord had not responded to Complaint 3 or Complaint 4. On 25 February 2025 we instructed the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint. It raised a new complaint (Complaint 5).
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 5 on 6 March 2025. It said it had been unable to contact her following Complaint 2 to arrange follow-on works and that she had not previously reported the flea infestation. It said it had found the source of the leak from the property above and would complete the required repairs. The landlord said it had also raised works to investigate the leak from the chimney, make safe the electrics, inspect the radiators, and treat the damp and mould and fleas. It offered the resident £300 for distress and inconvenience caused by the repair delays, and £200 for time and trouble due to its complaint handling and communication failures.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 7 March 2025. She said the landlord was not appropriately supervising the works. She explained that her neighbour was refusing entry to carry out the repairs and that the leaks therefore continued to damage her home.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 9 April 2025. It apologised for the time taken to complete the repairs and for its lack of communication. The landlord said it would carry out a full survey and develop a plan of works and would arrange for flea treatment. It increased its offer of compensation to £1,250 for distress and inconvenience and £250 for time and trouble.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in May 2025 as the leaks, damp, and mould, and flea infestation remained unresolved. At the time of this report the landlord states the repairs are “ongoing”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
The resident made her first complaint in January 2023. However, the landlord’s final complaint response refers to actions it took in 2022. We have therefore referred to these actions within this report. Our assessment of these actions will however be brief due to the availability and reliability of evidence and we have focussed on the period from January 2023 onwards.

Leaks, damp, and mould.

The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend to emergency repairs to make safe within 24 hours. It states it will complete ‘non-urgent’ repairs within 28 days and programmed and specialist repairs within 60 days. It has a damp and mould policy but this does not contain any repair timeframes.
It is not clear when the resident first reported leaks, damp, and mould in the property. However, the landlord has acknowledged in its final response letter that she reported a leak from the chimney in March 2022, water ingress from the flat above in June 2022, and damp and mould in November 2022. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that this is when the issues started.
The resident reported water ingress from the chimney breast again at the start of January 2023. The landlord booked an appointment for 2 weeks later to inspect the issue. It is not clear from the records whether this inspection went ahead and we have not seen any reports or notes relating to this inspection. It is unclear whether the landlord has not kept a record of the outcome of this inspection or has done so but failed to provide it for the purposes of this investigation. Regardless, this shows poor record keeping. As the landlord has not provided a record of the outcome of the visit, it cannot demonstrate that its actions following the inspection were reasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord several times during January and February 2023 asking for an update. That she had to do so caused her time and trouble which could have been avoided if the landlord had communicated proactively.
The landlord’s contractor inspected the roof in February 2023 and the inside of the property in March 2023. Records indicate that the contractor provided the landlord with a report of its findings in late March 2023 however we have not seen a copy of this. This is a further demonstration of poor record keeping.
Communications between the landlord and resident indicate that it completed some works to the roof in late March 2023. It is not however clear from the records what these works were. This again indicates record keeping issues.
In April 2023 the contractor confirmed that that it would not be feasible for the family to remain in the property while it carried out the internal works. It also said that the resident would need to remove her furniture and belongings before works started.
Between May and October 2023 there were numerous communications between the landlord and resident in relation to arranging a decant. Throughout these communications the resident asked the landlord to confirm the details of the decant to ensure it was suitable and to outline exactly what works it would be completing to the property. It is understandable that the resident would want such details. The landlord eventually provided the resident with very basic information which was insufficient to reassure her of where her family would be staying and what works it would complete in her absence. This was unreasonable.
The landlord failed to communicate promptly and effectively with either the resident or its contractors during this period. Both the resident and the contractors chased the landlord repeatedly for updates. This was unreasonable and caused unnecessary delays to the work and avoidable frustration to the resident.
Following Complaint 2, the landlord took no further action in relation to the damp and mould until 8 months later when the resident raised another complaint. This was a failing as the landlord was aware that the issues remained unresolved.
We note however that the resident did not contact the landlord about the issue during this period. While the resident should not have to chase the landlord to bring about a resolution, reporting it again may have mitigated the impact of the issues on her family.
The landlord stated in its response to Complaint 3 that it had raised repairs to deal with the damp and mould in the property. However, no work was carried out and we have seen no evidence that it tried to arrange any appointments with the resident. This was a further failing.
On 7 February 2025 the resident reported a leak coming from the flat above. She said she was concerned that this was a health and safety issue as water was leaking into the electrics. She also said she continued to experience water ingress from the chimney and damp and mould throughout the property.
The leak was caused by issues with tiles in the neighbour’s bathroom. The neighbour was aware of the impact to the resident’s property but on several occasions refused the landlord access to complete the required repairs.
It is not clear when the landlord attended to inspect the resident’s electrics as its repair records contain several different completion dates. The earliest completion date recorded is 10 February 2025. This was outside the 24 hour timeframe for emergency repairs within the landlord’s repairs policy and was therefore unreasonable.
In March 2025 the landlord’s contractor inspected the roof and found it to be in good condition with no signs of water ingress. It carried out works to the chimney brickwork, pointing, and ridge covers.
In May 2025 the landlord instructed its contractor to turn off the water supply to the neighbour’s property to stop the leak. It also gained access to carry out the required repair.
We acknowledge that access issues caused the landlord challenges. However, the tenancy agreement obliges the tenant to allow access for repairs. It is therefore unclear why the landlord did not consider taking legal action to gain access until 3 months after the resident reported the leak. Given the ongoing impact of the leak on the resident, this was unreasonable.
In its final complaint response the landlord acknowledged that it had made “intermittent attempts” to resolve the leaks, damp, and mould. It also accepted that it had “failed to fully address” the issue. We agree with the landlord’s assessment of its performance.
In total, the landlord has offered the resident compensation of £1,250 for distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in completing repairs. It has not provided a breakdown of how much of this compensation relates to each of the separate repair issues. We have therefore considered the compensation as a whole and whether it is proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of all the issues reported.
The landlord’s offer of £1,250 is broadly in accordance with our remedies guidance which suggests that compensation of £600 to £1,000 should be considered where there have been failures which had a significant impact on the resident.
That the landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised and offered the resident compensation is positive. However, it has still not completed works to resolve the issues. That it has failed to do so almost 2 and a half years after the resident reported them is inappropriate. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould.

Radiator repairs.

The resident first reported issues with the radiators in her son’s bedroom in January 2023. She said the radiator was very rusty and did not heat up. She first reported issues with the bathroom radiator within Complaint 3 in July 2024. We have seen no evidence that the landlord took any action following the resident’s reports. This was a failing.
The resident did not contact the landlord again about radiator issue again until she asked the Ombudsman to intervene in her complaint in February 2025. While the resident should not be expected to have to chase the landlord, reporting it again may have prompted a response and mitigated the impact of the issue.
The landlord inspected the radiators in March 2025 and replaced them in May 2025.
Overall, the landlord delayed unreasonably in addressing the resident’s concerns about the bedroom radiator for over 2 years, and about the bathroom radiator for 10 months. It has however since replaced both radiators. It has also offered the resident redress which resolves the complaint satisfactorily. We therefore find reasonable redress in relation the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of radiator repairs.

A flea infestation.

The landlord’s pest control policy states it will assess infestations of fleas and will take “reasonably prompt action” to manage an infestation.
The resident first reported an infestation of fleas to the landlord in July 2024 within Complaint 3. She stated that the fleas were brought into her property by her neighbour’s cat. She said fleas were biting the family and that as a result they could not have visitors.
The tenancy agreement obliges the resident to report repairs to the landlord. The landlord is only responsible for the repair when it has been made aware of the issue. We have seen no evidence that the resident reported the fleas to the landlord’s repair service prior to her complaint. As the resident did not do so, the landlord did not have the opportunity to resolve the issue prior to the complaint. However, the landlord should reasonably have addressed her concern on receipt of the complaint. We have seen no evidence that it did so. This was a failing.
We have not seen evidence that the resident reported the issue again until February 2025 when she asked the Ombudsman to intervene in her complaint. It is unclear why she did not do so as may have mitigated the impact of the infestation.
The landlord raised an order to treat the flea infestation in March 2025. This was 8 months after the resident’s initial report. This was not “reasonably prompt action” in line with its policy.
Following the landlord’s final complaint response its contractor tried to book appointments for treatment. However, due to a family bereavement the resident was unable to confirm an appointment. We acknowledge that the resident’s circumstances caused unavoidable delays in addressing the flea infestation. This was outside the landlord’s control.
The landlord has acknowledged that it has not yet carried out pest control treatment. Its records indicate this is because the resident “refused” the works as they did not feel the treatment proposed by the contractor was adequate. The resident wanted the landlord to carry out heat treatment rather than treating with pesticides only. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns. However, it is reasonable for the landlord to act on the professional advice of its contractor.
Overall, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s report of a flea infestation following her complaint in July 2024. However, it has since its final complaint response attempted to address the issue but has been unable to do so due to the resident not agreeing to the proposed treatment. It has also offered the resident redress which resolves the complaint satisfactorily. We therefore find reasonable redress in relation the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a flea infestation.

Complaint handling.

The landlord failed to respond to Complaint 1. This was a failure to adhere to its own complaints policy and the Complaint handling Code (the Code).
It took the landlord 12 working days to respond to Complaint 2. This slightly exceeded the timeframe within its policy and the Code. However, it apologised and offered the resident proportionate redress of £25 for the delay. This was reasonable.
The landlord did not respond to Complaint 3 and has been unable to provide a reason for this. This is inappropriate.
In relation to Complaint 4, it told the resident that it had raised repairs which were not yet outside target timeframes for completion. It said there had therefore been no service failure and it would not log a complaint. This was inappropriate. The resident’s communications stated that her dissatisfaction related to previous reports on damp and mould as well as the current leaks and repair issues. The landlord should therefore have raised a complaint and investigated her concerns. That it did not was a complaint handling failure.
The landlord asked the resident if it could extend its response timeframe for its stage 1 response to Complaint 5 by 1 day. This was reasonable and in accordance with its policy and the Code. It later offered the resident £200 compensation for its complaint handling and communication failings. This was appropriate.
Within its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that it had not responded to Complaint 4 and apologised for this. This was appropriate. However, it did not identify and apologise for its failure to respond to Complaints 1 and 3. This was a missed opportunity to acknowledge its failings.
The landlord took 23 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. While this was not an excessive delay, it did not request an extension of the response timeframe in line with its policy and the Code. However, the landlord did apologise for the delay in its response letter and increased its offer of compensation for complaint handling and communication to £250. This was reasonable.
In its final complaint response the landlord acknowledged that it had “failed to fully address” structural issues allowing water to enter the property. It said this had “created the environment for damp and mould to grow”. It also acknowledged that this had impacted the resident’s “overall enjoyment of [her] home”. That it explicitly acknowledged these failings and took responsibility for the impact of them was transparent and demonstrates a willingness to learn from its mistakes.
Overall, the landlord failed on several occasions to log and respond to the resident’s complaints. While it has acknowledged its failure to respond to Complaint 4, it has not identified the same failings in relation to Complaints 1 and 3. We therefore find maladministration for its complaint handling.
However, the level of compensation offered by the landlord in its final complaint response for its complaint handling failings was broadly in accordance with what we would have ordered. We have not therefore ordered further compensation for this issue.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of radiator repairs.
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a flea infestation.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Complete a full survey of the property to identify the source/s of the leaks, damp, and mould. Given the longstanding nature of the issue, the landlord should consider having an independent specialist complete this survey. It should also consider whether it is necessary to survey the flat above the resident to ascertain whether there are any further leaks.
3. Following this survey, the landlord must produce an action plan that sets out:
  1. What works are required to address the source of the leaks, damp, and mould.
  2. Clear timescales for completing each stage of work.
  3. A specific point of contact who will update the resident about progress at agreed regular intervals.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider reviewing its damp and mould policy to include target timeframes for repairs.