Peabody Trust (202446687)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2 bedroom flat with her children. She reported that the poor condition of her windows caused damp and mould in the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Reports about the poor condition of windows in the property.
   3. The associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports about the poor condition of windows in the property.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. We found:
   1. The landlord failed to carry out a damp and mould survey or risk assessment. After noting extensive damp and mould, it then unnecessarily delayed repairs to resolve this.
   2. The landlord failed to replace the windows within a reasonable period. Its offer of compensation for this aspect of the complaint was not sufficient.
   3. The landlord has not replaced a window despite evidence it is rotten and causing damp and mould in a child’s bedroom.
   4. The landlord delayed responding to the complaint and failed to address each aspect. The compensation awarded for complaint handling was not sufficient given the length of delay.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

     What we haven’t investigated

7. We recognise that the situation has caused the resident distress. Aspects of her complaint relate to the impact her living conditions had on her family’s health. We do not underestimate her concerns about the impact on her family. Unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused health issues or determine liability and award damages. A court may deal with this as a personal injury claim. However, where we identify failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience caused to a resident.

     What we have investigated

8. Landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from category 1 hazards, as per the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). For the purposes of this report, these can include damp and mould, secure windows and excess cold.
9. The resident’s January 2025 complaint included the issue of persistent mould. On 23 January 2025, the landlord said that the windows were causing extensive damp, mould and condensation but noted no vulnerabilities in the property. This was not appropriate as the extensive mould was in a child’s bedroom. Under HHSRS Guidance, this is a particular concern as children spend the most time in their room. Its damp and mould policy confirms it will offer a temporary move to residents if the issue is critical. There is no evidence it considered this despite identifying black mould. It also continued to delay preventative work which we will investigate in further detail under the window findings below.
10. The resident explained she was housebound and recovering from surgery. She said she couldn’t afford to heat her home and the mould was so bad in her son’s room that he was staying with family. It is of concern that the landlord does not appear to have carried out a risk assessment at this, or any further stage. Category 1 hazards were potentially present under HHSRS. There was a clear failing by the landlord to consider the potential effects on the household.
11. The landlord completed a mould wash on 30 January 2025. In February 2025, the resident raised the problem again. She was concerned that she was unable to adequately ventilate the kitchen as the window was nailed shut and there were no trickle vents. The technical inspection in March 2025 confirmed there was heavy mould and ordered another mould wash. The landlord did this later in March 2025 and confirmed that there was a large amount of mould and poor airflow. This shows the landlord took some reasonable actions towards mitigating the immediate issues of damp and mould.
12. Overall, the landlord took some steps to mitigate the reported damp and mould through mould washes but caused unnecessary delays in resolving the issue at its source. It also failed to carry out a risk assessment or a damp and mould survey in line with its own policies. The resident had to live with ongoing damp and mould for 8 months and repeatedly clean this away throughout the timeline.
13. In addition to a written apology, the landlord must pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the damp and mould. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but which do not have a permanent impact.

14. It was resolution focussed for the landlord to recognise through its complaint responses that the resident had reported window faults for several years. It acknowledged that it had dealt with these repairs under its responsive repairs policy. It has provided contractor notes showing repairs were actioned. It did not receive further advice regarding the condition of the windows from these notes. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the reports of its contractors in doing the repairs it did.
15. In December 2024, a contractor said the landlord should survey the windows. On 14 January 2025, the contractor found that the kitchen window was beyond repair and required replacement. The landlord then sent a survey request for a full window replacement. This was a reasonable response to the ongoing concern about the windows and related damp and mould and was actioned quickly.
16. The landlord’s stage 1 response in February 2025 said it had passed her case to a team to ensure monitoring and communication. There does not appear to have been sufficient communication or repairs progress. The resident chased responses and appointments throughout the process, likely causing her unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
17. The landlord did not carry out a window survey until 5 March 2025. This survey said that the kitchen window and bedroom windows were beyond repair, causing water ingress and heavy mould. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it will carry out major works, including window replacements, in 60 calendar days. The landlord replaced the kitchen, 1 bedroom and the living room windows in August 2025. It has not replaced the second bedroom window it identified in its report as requiring replacement and causing damp and mould.
18. The replacements were done 175 days after the survey report and 217 calendar days from when the landlord reasonably had knowledge that a full window replacement was due. This is significantly outside its 60 day policy. The landlord did not raise the window replacement order until April 2025 and then did not approve it until June 2025. We understand that major works can take time and there is a lead time in materials which can cause delays. However, the landlord’s policy states it will do window replacements within 60 days, presumably including the lead time.
19. The resident often had to chase the landlord for updates. It told her in March 2025 that it would not be replacing the second bedroom window. She has consistently disputed this with the landlord since and there is no evidence as to why it failed to progress the second bedroom window renewal.
20. It is unreasonable that there was such a significant delay in the window replacement. The landlord has not renewed one of the windows it surveyed as requiring replacement. This is in a child’s bedroom and may be a risk under HHSRS. The relevant guidance notes that children spend more time in their bedroom and that mould will cause additional health risks. It is unreasonable that the landlord did not action this replacement.
21. The landlord mentioned difficulties in contacting the resident as adding to the delay. The resident requested that the landlord do the works during school holidays to avoid taking time off work. The contractor offered Saturday appointments to allow works to commence sooner. Nevertheless, there is evidence that the resident regularly chased the landlord for an update. It also only attempted contact by phone when the resident had explained she worked and had already taken time off for appointments. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to respond to the resident’s emails with updates and appointments.
22. Overall, the landlord failed to replace the windows for a significant length of time and there is still 1 window left to replace. Through the landlord’s final complaint response, it offered compensation of £140 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs and poor communication. This is not a reasonable offer to cover the level of stress and inconvenience these failings caused the resident.
23. The resident had to live with ongoing damp and mould for 8 months (outlined above) which was linked to the condition of the windows. The resident had to repeatedly chase up action from the landlord which likely caused distress and inconvenience. The landlord exacerbated this with poor communication. The landlord’s learning from its stage 1 response was to complete jobs in a reasonable timeframe. It failed to demonstrate this learning in practice over the following 6 months. We therefore find there has been maladministration.
24. In addition to a written apology, the landlord must pay the resident £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the window replacements. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but which do not have a permanent impact. The landlord must renew the bedroom window which it identified as needing replacement.

25. Under the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with this.
26. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 16 working days after the resident’s complaint of 14 January 2025. This was slightly outside its complaints policy timeframe but not an unreasonable delay and is unlikely to have caused significant distress.
27. The resident stated she was unhappy with the stage 1 response on the same day, but the landlord told her it would reconsider compensation when it completed the survey. This was a concerning failure to recognise an escalation request. The resident repeatedly chased the landlord for a response and sought support from us in getting this.
28. The landlord did not provide a stage 2 response until 30 July 2025, nearly 7 months later. This is significantly beyond the Complaint Handling Code and its own policy. It acknowledged its delayed repair response and inadequate communication as well as its overdue response.
29. The landlord said that once it had replaced the windows, this would resolve the damp and mould as the resident could ventilate the property again. It did not address her concern that it would not be replacing the second bedroom window. She had raised this several times and this was part of the original complaint. The stage 2 response therefore did not fully address the resident’s complaint.
30. The landlord offered £70 compensation for failings related to its complaint handling. Our remedies guidance suggests an offer in this range when there has been a failing over a short duration. The delay here was 7 months and so the offer of £70 was insufficient and failed to take into account the full extent of distress and inconvenience. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £150 for its complaint handling failures. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect the resident, but which do not have a permanent impact.
31. Overall, the landlord’s complaint responses were not timely or adequate, and the compensation was not sufficient to put right the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident or the time and trouble she took in pursuing the matter. We therefore find there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

Complaint Handling and Escalation

32. Recognising when a matter should be escalated as a formal complaint is a fundamental part of effective complaint handling. In this case, staff did not identify that the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction and repeated contact met the criteria for escalation under the landlord’s complaints policy. This resulted in delays and missed opportunities to resolve the issues promptly. Landlords should ensure that staff are trained to recognise escalation triggers, such as repeated expressions of dissatisfaction or unresolved concerns, and apply the complaints procedure consistently. Clear guidance, regular refresher training, and monitoring can help embed this practice and improve outcomes for residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. Effective knowledge and information management is critical for ensuring that landlords meet their obligations to residents, particularly those with vulnerabilities. While the landlord demonstrated generally adequate record keeping, the failure to consistently track and apply vulnerability information to repairs and risk assessments represents a significant gap. Vulnerability data should not only be recorded but actively integrated into operational processes, such as prioritising repairs and conducting risk assessments. This ensures that residents receive appropriate support and that potential hazards are mitigated promptly. Embedding these practices into workflows and training staff on the importance of using vulnerability information can improve service delivery and reduce risk to residents.

Communication

34. Clear and accessible communication is essential to maintaining trust and ensuring residents can engage effectively with their landlord. In this case, it missed opportunities to use alternative contact methods, such as email, to ensure information was available when needed. Relying on a single channel can create barriers, particularly if the resident cannot access updates promptly. The landlord may consider adopting a multi-channel approach, confirming preferred contact methods and using them consistently. This helps ensure that important updates reach residents in a timely and accessible way, reducing frustration and improving service delivery.