Peabody Trust (202431209)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bed ground floor flat with her husband and young child. She is currently around 8 months pregnant, and has reported she has asthma which is affected by damp and mould. The resident says there have been persistent and repeated leaks into her bedroom from a flat upstairs since March 2021. The most recent was in October 2024. She was unhappy with how the landlord has handled the leak, so made a complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about how the landlord handled:
   1. A leak into the resident’s property from a property above.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the following:
   1. Severe maladministration in how the landlord handled a leak into the resident’s property from a property above.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. There were significant and unreasonable delays in the landlord’s response to the leak. This was compounded by poor communication. It also failed to move the resident to temporary alternative accommodation, despite its operatives confirming this was necessary. This was inappropriate given the length of time the leak was unresolved. While it has accepted some of the failings, it has yet to resolve the leak, and its compensation offer is insufficient for the level of failings and the impact on the resident.
5. The landlord failed to respond to the complaint in line with its complaints policy or the Complaint Handling Code. It initially declined to open a complaint, despite there being no circumstances which allowed it to do so. Both its initial acknowledgement and stage 1 response were delayed, it ignored multiple escalation requests, and it only issued a stage 2 response when contacted by the Ombudsman.

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 have not considered

6. Our scheme rules say we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time (normally 12 months). The resident said there have been persistent and ongoing leaks since March 2021. She made a complaint in October 2024, at the time she reported a new leak. While the resident believes the leaks are linked, the evidence provided shows there was a different cause of each leak. So they were not related. With that in mind, we will only be considering how the landlord handled the October 2024 leak as part of this investigation.
7. The resident said the way the landlord handled the leak damaged her physical and mental health. The courts are best placed to deal with disputes related to personal injury as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide the cause of any injury and how long it might last. We therefore won’t investigate any reports of personal injury. But we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Assessment

8. The landlord accepts it is responsible for resolving the leak into the resident’s property, as well as any damage it causes to her flat. It disputes it is responsible for damage to her belongings. It accepts it did not respond appropriately to her reports, and has offered compensation. We have therefore considered whether it has done enough to put things right.
9. The resident reported a leak to the landlord on 28 October 2024. She said there was an uncontainable leak into her bedroom, and it looked like the ceiling would collapse. She said her the carpet was saturated, and the walls smelled of damp. The landlord’s records show it booked an emergency inspection. It concluded the ceiling had not collapsed, but the leak needed urgent attention to prevent it collapsing.
10. The landlord did not inspect the property above until 2-3 days later. This was outside of the 4-hour timescale in its repairs policy. Its records indicate that it would not raise a works order for the leak until the tenant upstairs reported the leak separately. This was unreasonable, as it was already on notice of the leak.
11. The landlord inspected the property above on 31 October 2024. It identified the likely source of the leak as a cracked waste pipe off the shower tray, which melted when someone poured acid cleaner down the drain. It said this was a major repair, which required it to rip out and renew the bathroom. It said it would need to move the resident and take the ceiling down, as it was not safe.
12. The landlord told the resident on 11 November 2024 that the leak had been attended to, and that she should report any future leaks. It said if she was concerned the ceiling was about to collapse, she should log a repair. It is apparent from the information provided that the landlord had not taken any action to resolve the leak at that time – it had simply asked the tenant above not to use their shower. Given that the leak was not resolved, and the landlord had identified that the ceiling was at risk of collapse if it was not resolved quickly, this was not an appropriate response.
13. The landlord went to the resident’s property on 18 November 2024. Its records say the carpet and bed were “soaked”, the leak was not fixed, and it needed to trace the source of the leak. It raised a works order for a surveyor to visit, and then failed to take any action to arrange the surveyor for another month. This lack of oversight or appropriate monitoring of repairs caused unreasonable delays.
14. The landlord then raised a works order on 6 January 2025 to make safe the electrics in the bedroom ceiling. It is concerning that it took the landlord over 2 months to take any steps to ensure the electrics were safe. This was a significant delay, which demonstrates it did not take the safety of the property seriously.
15. The landlord inspected the property upstairs on 10 January 2025. It made the same findings as those from the previous inspection, and said the resident needed to be moved as the bedroom was not safe. It then arranged a technical inspection on 16 January 2025. The surveyor on that visit also said the resident needed to be moved. Despite this, the landlord failed to take any steps to move the resident.
16. The landlord’s records indicate that another operative attended on 20 January 2025 and advised the resident did not need to be moved as there was no active leak. However, that operative has provided no evidence of what inspections they completed, or how they reached their conclusions. They also indicated that the leak was resolved when it’s common ground it was not, so they have not shown they carried out an appropriate investigation. They also indicated that the resident could only remain in the property if the landlord started works as soon as possible (which it did not).
17. The landlord’s records show it sent an operative to the flat upstairs on 10 February 2025, and they reached the same conclusions as the previous 2 operatives. It has not explained why it kept sending operatives for repeated inspections rather than booking in or completing any repairs to stop the leak.
18. By 6 March 2025 it had taken no further action, and only booked remedial works for 20-25 March 2025 after the resident chased it up. It then had to cancel those works, as the resident informed it that it had yet to complete any works to resolve the leak in the flat upstairs. This meant the works in her flat could not go ahead. It should not be necessary for the resident to tell the landlord about its lack of progress in resolving the leak. This demonstrates a lack of co-ordination or appropriate repairs monitoring on the landlord’s part.
19. The landlord arranged a technical inspection of the flat above on 11 April 2025, and raised a works order for repairs on 16 April 2025. It is unclear why the landlord arranged a fourth inspection when it had previously raised works orders for repairs it had not yet completed. It booked works for 14 May 2025, but the works did not go ahead. The records provided show this was due to poor communication between the landlord and its contractors.
20. The landlord then completed works on 16 June 2025, but to a poor standard. By the time of the stage 2 response in July 2025, the leak was not resolved. This was just under 9 months after the initial leak. This was a significant and unreasonable delay.
21. The landlord has accepted there were delays in completing the repairs. It apologised and offered the resident compensation (£550 for distress and inconvenience, plus 10% of her rent up to the stage 1 response, and 5% of her rent between the stage 1 and stage 2 responses). It also said it would monitor the repairs through to completion.
22. The landlord recognised failings in this case, and took some steps to put things right. But the compensation offered is insufficient for the impact on the resident. It has also failed to resolve the leak and complete the works in the resident’s flat (more than a year after the leak started), or to move the resident until it is able to do so (despite having determined it was necessary to do so for safety reasons). Instead, it has simply told the resident not to use her bedroom until it completes the works and noted another bedroom is available.
23. It has shown no assessment of the size of that second room, the number or age of the occupiers of the property, or any vulnerabilities. As such, it has not shown it made evidence-based decisions. As the leak is still ongoing more than a year after it started, the landlord has also not shown it learned from the complaint.
24. Given the duration of the failings and the impact on the resident, we find there has been severe maladministration. We have therefore considered what the landlord needs to do to put things right.
25. The landlord has yet to resolve the leak and complete the repairs to the resident’s home, or to move her to temporary alternative accommodation. The landlord has recently arranged for an internal disrepair surveyor to complete another inspection following receipt of a letter of claim from the resident’s solicitors, and that surveyor said the resident did not need to be moved for the works.
26. While it is generally reasonable for a landlord to rely on the opinions of appropriately qualified experts, the evidence does not show it is reasonable in this case. This is because multiple previous surveyors and operatives have confirmed the resident needed to be moved for her safety, and another confirmed that she could only remain in the property if the landlord completed the works as soon as possible. The landlord’s investigations into the cause of the leak are ongoing (as there may also be a second leak from another flat), and there is no timescale on when the leak will be resolved. The most recent surveyor also had no knowledge of the occupiers of the household or any vulnerabilities. These are all factors we would expect a landlord to take into account.
27. It is neither reasonable nor appropriate to expect a pregnant resident to share a single small bedroom with her partner and young child for an indefinite period of time as a result of the landlord’s failings in resolving the leak. Especially when multiple operatives have said she needs to be moved for safety reasons. As such, we have made orders for the landlord for complete a housing needs assessment for the resident and her family, and to offer the available options for a decant until it is able to complete the works.
28. With regard to the compensation, the resident does not believe the landlord’s offer is sufficient because:
    1. She had to leave the property and stay with family on multiple occasions due to the leak, damp smells, and safety concerns.
    2. There was a lack of available living space due to the leak. She had to avoid sleeping in the main bedroom for safety reasons, and the second bedroom is too small to fit the necessary beds for everyone in the house.
    3. The leak caused damaged to her belongings (such as a bed frame and mattress).
    4. At the time of the leak, she was experiencing a prolonged miscarriage. She had been advised to rest, but she was unable to do so as she had to continually chase the landlord because of its inaction and her safety concerns.
    5. She is now pregnant with a high risk pregnancy, is due to give birth next month, and the leak is still ongoing. The prospect of having major repair works while caring for a newborn because of the landlord’s delays is causing her anxiety.
    6. She felt physically and emotionally drained from having to continually chase the landlord, and felt it did not treat her with either dignity or respect.
29. With regard to damaged belongings, a court or an insurer would be best placed to determine the cause of the damage and the value of any damaged items. The landlord has appropriately referred the resident to her contents insurance, as well as its liability insurance if she believes it is responsible for the damage. We would only expect the landlord to consider compensation for such losses if its insurer would not cover the claim, for example if the cause of the damage was not covered under the policy. As the resident has not yet made such a claim, it would not be appropriate to order any additional compensation for damage to belongings at this stage.
30. With regard to loss of use or enjoyment of the property, the landlord has offered compensation based on 10% of the rent up to the stage 1 response, and 5% of the rent between its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. This is inconsistent between its own complaint responses, as well as with its own compensation guidance. The resident has lost the use of a bedroom, which the landlord’s compensation guidance says should be calculated at 20% of the rent after the first 48 hours.
31. The landlord must therefore pay the resident compensation for loss of use of her bedroom at 20% of the rent from 31 October 2024 up to the date of the stage 2 response. This is calculated as follows:
    1. The resident’s rent was £1,464 per month from March 2024 and £1,550 per month from March 2025. This gives a daily rate of £9.63 up to March 2025, and £10.19 from 1 March 2025 (calculated at 20% of the rent).
    2. She has lost the use of her main bedroom from 28 October 2024 onwards. Taking into account the 48 hours allowed under the landlord’s compensation policy, this is 264 days of loss of use up to the stage 2 response.
    3. The total compensation for loss of use is therefore £2,632.03. This is inclusive of the loss of use compensation offered during the landlord’s complaints process.
32. The landlord’s actions after the stage 2 response are outside the scope of this investigation, as they have not completed the landlord’s complaints process. So we have assessed the compensation for loss of use up to the stage 2 response. If the resident wishes to pursue compensation for further delays (if any) after the stage 2 response, she would need to make a new complaint to the landlord before we could assess this. But we have also made a recommendation in this regard.
33. In addition to compensation for loss of use of her bedroom, we have also considered compensation for distress and inconvenience.
34. The delays in this case have been significant. By the time of the stage 2 response, the leak had been unresolved for 9 months. And the landlord has still not resolved the leak or related damage. This has evidently caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience, which was compounded by the landlord’s poor communication.
35. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, the landlord must pay the resident £1,200 compensation for distress and inconvenience up to the point of the stage 2 response. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for serious failings which have a long-term impact on a resident. This is inclusive of the compensation the landlord offered during the complaints process.

36. 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.
37. The resident made a complaint on 28 October 2024 and 4 November 2024. The landlord’s records show it declined to log a complaint on 11 November 2024, as it did not believe there was a service failure. It is not open to the landlord to reject a complaint on that basis. This was not in line with either its policies or the Code.
38. The resident raised a complaint again on 11 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 November 2024, and issued a stage 1 response on 19 December 2024. Both the acknowledgement and the stage 1 response were therefore delayed.
39. The resident contacted the landlord to escalate her complaint on 29 January 2025, 6 March 2025, and 20 March 2025. The landlord failed to escalate the complaint. The resident contacted us in July 2025, and we wrote to the landlord on 15 July 2025. We told the landlord to issue a stage 2 response by no later than 22 July 2025. The landlord then issued the response on 21 July 2025.
40. The landlord failed to follow its own policies or the Code at each stage of the complaints process. It unreasonably declined to log a complaint, and once it logged the complaint it failed to meet any of the relevant time limits. It also failed to escalate the complaint to stage 2 at all until instructed to do so by the Ombudsman, leading to a delay of nearly 6 months in the complaints process. This was clearly unreasonable.
41. The landlord offered the resident £125 compensation for its complaint handling failings. This was £50 for its delays at stage 1, and £75 for its delays at stage 2. Given the number of its complaint handling failings, as well as the significant delays in its responses, we do not consider this is enough to put things right. We therefore find maladministration in its complaint handling.
42. To put things right, the landlord must issue a written apology to the resident for its poor complaint handling. It must also pay the resident £250 compensation for the time and trouble caused by its poor complaint handling. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but have no permanent impact. This is inclusive of the £125 compensation offered in its complaints process.

Learning

Temporary moves

43. The landlord decided that the resident needed to be moved to temporary accommodation on a few occasions, then failed to move her despite having identified safety concerns. It has since declined to move her as there is a second bedroom. But it has failed to show it appropriately considered the size of the second room, the number of people in the household, or any vulnerabilities. The landlord should ensure that it properly considers all of those factors when assessing whether a resident needs to be moved for repairs in future. It should also ensure that it appropriately actions recommendations for a temporary move.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

44. The landlord kept generally good records related to the repairs and its complaint handling. But it would benefit from ensuring that all records are kept in a centralised records system rather than relying heavily on internal emails.

Communication

45. The landlord’s communication was poor throughout, which exacerbated its other failings. The landlord should provide residents with appropriate information and updates related to repairs, including anticipated timescales. Its reference to GDPR as a reason not to update the resident on the leak was unhelpful, and it should ensure its staff are aware of ICO guidance on GDPR and housing repairs (How data protection law can prevent harm in the housing sector | ICO).

Complaint handling

46. The multiple failings in the landlord’s complaint handling indicate either a lack of knowledge from its staff, or a lack of adequate resourcing to enable its staff to comply with the Code. The landlord should ensure that it has adequate resourcing in place to ensure that its staff are able to comply with the Code, and that its staff have sufficient training on its complaint handling obligations.