Peabody Trust (202440643)

Background

1. The resident became a tenant of the landlord in October 2021. The resident is deaf. She also has arthritis which impacts her mobility, and a condition that impacts her lungs. Following a previous Ombudsman determination in September 2023, she pursued repairs to her property, and raised a further complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould, and repairs.
   2. The resident’s concerns about reasonable adjustments.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and repairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about reasonable adjustments.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord recognised failings and offered compensation to put right the impact on the resident at the time of the complaint. However, it subsequently failed to take action to resolve the reported repairs.
5. The landlord acted reasonably by explaining the ways deaf residents could raise emergency repairs, but failed to recognise the resident’s personal experience or take steps to ensure it gave regard for her vulnerabilities.
6. The landlord recognised delays in its handling of the complaint at stage 1, but failed to demonstrate that it had learnt from its previous poor communication during the complaints process and did not address all aspects of the complaint. Its compensation offer was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.

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 investigated

7. Within her complaint communication, the resident said that this situation affected her mental and physical health and wellbeing. It may be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. Alongside this complaint, the resident raised a separate complaint related to the landlord’s handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB). The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 14 February 2025. We have not seen evidence to show the resident escalated this complaint, or that the landlord did a stage 2 response. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. Therefore, the resident’s ASB concerns will not form part of this investigation.

9. It is evident that the resident experienced multiple repair problems while residing in the property between 2021 and 2025. We previously issued a determination in September 2023 which considered the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom ceiling, damp and mould, and kitchen. The report considered events up until approximately September 2022 and we ordered the landlord to pay compensation for this period. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider events from September 2022 when it offered compensation under this new complaint.
10. The landlord appropriately recognised failings in its handling of the resident’s repairs. We found that it was responsible for unreasonable delays and poor communications as below:
    1. Despite recognising work needed to renew the plinth in the kitchen, check the bathroom for leaks, damp test the walls and replace a radiator valve on 2 February 2024, it is unclear from the landlord’s repair records that the repairs took place.
    2. It completed a mould wash to the kitchen units on 14 March 2024 but we have not seen evidence to show that it completed any further investigations into the cause of the mould, or her concerns about the kitchen.
    3. From March 2024, the landlord was on notice of the resident’s concerns that there was still damp in the property, she was spending £30 a month on her dehumidifier, the situation was impacting her health, and she believed there was a leak from the boiler. There is a lack of evidence to support that it completed further investigations at the time.
    4. There is no evidence that it raised repairs until 4 July 2024, following the resident’s complaint communication. While it reported finding no leaks from her boiler in July 2024, and identified the need to trace the leak from the flat above, we have not seen evidence that it communicated clearly with her.
    5. Between August and October 2024, it reported completing some work to renew the bath panel and silicone, and clear the gutter and renew some roof tiles. In August 2024, it identified the need to change 2 wall units in the kitchen, the front drawer, doors, plinth, and end panel. However, its records indicate that this was cancelled as there was due to be a kitchen upgrade. There is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord responded to the resident’s queries on when it would replace her kitchen, and whether it was reasonable for it to delay works pending the replacement.
    6. The resident needed to pursue her concerns about ongoing repairs into November 2024. She raised concerns about the position of the gas pipe in her kitchen not being high enough off the ground in March 2022 as part of an escalation request for her previous complaint. Despite her reports that this was outstanding, the landlord did not complete the work to resolve this until 21 November 2024. This was 32 months following her initial report.
    7. Despite the resident’s ongoing reports about damp affecting the back kitchen wall of the property, we have not seen evidence to show that the landlord investigated her concerns appropriately or took steps to identify the cause, or resolve the problem.
    8. While it noted in December 2024 that the kitchen works were still needed due to the doors, side panel, and plinths being damaged, its records indicate that it was due to reattend and complete work on 6 January 2025. It appears to have asked for a surveyor to visit to assess the ongoing damp and this prevented it from completing work at the time. There is no evidence to show that it explained to the resident why it did not attend.
    9. The resident reported a sewage overflow around 5 January 2025, and there is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve the problem within a timely manner, or that it communicated effectively with her.
    10. It arranged a survey for 18 February 2025 within its stage 1 complaint response but the resident reported that no one attended on the day. The landlord has not explained why this was the case, and its repair records do not reference this. We note that an inspection was booked for 21 March 2025. However, there is a lack of documentary evidence to show the outcome.
11. The resident spent considerable time and trouble pursuing a resolution to the repair issues within the property. There is limited evidence to support that the landlord provided lasting resolutions to her repair concerns, or that it communicated effectively with her by explaining the actions it was taking.
12. The resident has experienced various leaks from the property above hers, and raised a separate complaint related to ASB from that property. We note that there were problems accessing the property above despite the landlord’s attempts. This was somewhat outside of its control as it was awaiting enforcement action. The landlord nonetheless acted reasonably by recognising that this matter also caused disruption and inconvenience to the resident.
13. The landlordappropriately recognised that it had received 110 service requests in relation to her reports between October 2021 and March 2025. It agreed that she was inconvenienced over an extended period of time due to its failure to fully address her concerns following her initial reports. While it could have done more to address the specific concerns she raised, it acted appropriately by summarising the issues experienced since November 2021 to demonstrate that it considered the full timeline and impact on the resident.
14. It offered £2,325 for the distress and inconvenience caused between September 2022 and April 2025 (31 months), and £100 to reimburse her for the cost of needing to pay for a company to clear excrement and waste from the garden (due to its failure to do so between January and March 2025).
15. While the landlord went some way to recognise the impact on the resident and put this right through its complaint responses, it did not provide a clear plan of action as to how it would address her ongoing concerns. Nor did if offer a timescale in which it intended to complete repairs which would have been appropriate given the length of time the matters had been ongoing.
16. Following the complaint, there was a dispute regarding whether the surveyor had attended on 21 March 2025. The surveyor reported that they could not gain access on the day but the resident said they did, as evidenced by her doorbell footage. We note that the landlord continued to chase the outcome of the survey in May 2025 following the resident’s reports that the surveyor did attend, but there is a lack of evidence to show that they provided this, or any other relevant information.
17. The landlord acted reasonably by raising a work order for a damp and mould survey on 29 May 2025. It received a report indicating that there were no issues within the kitchen following a visit on 12 June 2025. However, the report was brief and there is a lack of evidence that it completed a full damp and mould inspection using appropriate tools to investigate the resident’s concerns about the damp back wall, or document the reasons for any findings.
18. The landlord had previously identified the need for works to the kitchen units in August and December 2024 which it had not completed due to reports of ongoing dampness from January 2025. It was unreasonable for it to then rely on the limited survey report from June 2025 given it had previously acknowledged a range of repairs were required.
19. We note that the resident continued to pursue the same concerns about her kitchen units, damp back wall, drains, and damp, and matters were unresolved when she completed a mutual exchange and moved from the property in August 2025, 4 months after its stage 2 response.

Summary

20. Our remedies guidance (available on our website) sets out that compensation over £1,000 should be considered in cases where there has been severe maladministration, and the landlord’s failings have had a seriously detrimental impact on a resident. This includes where a landlord has repeatedly failed to provide a service, and where the failings accumulated over a considerable length of time.
21. The landlord’s offer of £2,325 compensation, and reimbursement of the £100 the resident spent on arranging her garden to be cleared, is significant. This was proportionate for the serious impact on the resident by the time of its stage 2 complaint response in April 2025. However, the landlord did not explain how it would provide a lasting resolution at the time of the complaint. It is evident that the issues remained unresolved as of August 2025, when she moved from the property, and it did not take sufficient steps in that period to identify required repairs. This demonstrated that it did not learn from the complaint or fully put things right.
22. In view of this, we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £300 compensation to account for the further distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble, the resident spent pursuing a resolution in the 4 months prior to moving from the property.

23. As part of our previous determination in September 2023, we ordered the landlord to agree with the resident a method for notifying her about future repairs appointments and centrally record this on its systems for consistency. We had found failings in how it communicated with her as a deaf resident when arranging appointments. The landlord confirmed that it had updated its records so that her vulnerabilities could be seen by its staff, that it would initially contact her daughter, and that her number was to be used for text only.
24. In her complaint to the landlord on 16 July 2024, the resident raised specific concerns that its systems made it impossible for her to report emergency repairs via its phone number due to the wait times during the day when Relay UK was available to her. She confirmed it should only use her phone number to text her as she was deaf, and the importance of notifying her of appointments as she could not hear a doorbell. Throughout the complaint, she reiterated this and said she felt that the landlord was ignoring her requests as she was not able to call and discuss the complaint due to being deaf.
25. While the landlord explained that many deaf residents used RelayUK, it did not acknowledge her specific concerns that she did use the service but could not get through. It did not take steps to address this point. It was reasonable for it to confirm that she could also report repairs via its repairs portal, and that it was due to launch a live chat function, but it did not address the point about its phone line or provide any reassurance to her.
26. We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord adequately considered the resident’s hearing condition when handling the complaint. She had informed the landlord that it should not call her or leave a voicemail as she could not hear these due to being deaf. This was at least as early as March 2022 as part of her previous complaint. There are multiple examples within the evidence submitted to us showing that the landlord attempted to call the resident, but did not get through and noted leaving a voicemail. These included 12 and 14 February, 14 March, 2 April and 29 April 2025. In addition, while some of its repair records note that it should text the resident and show it did so to arrange appointments on several occasions, there are also records indicating that it called and left a message. This was not appropriate given that it had a clear record of her hearing condition.
27. It is unclear from the evidence as to whether the landlord and its contractors were attempting to call the resident or her daughter. It would have been appropriate, given the lack of response on several occasions following a call, for it to have emailed the resident and taken steps to confirm the reasonable adjustments in place.
28. On various occasions, she also shared that operatives visiting the property needed to press both doorbells, and allow time for her to answer in view of her hearing condition. There is a lack of evidence to support that contractors were instructed to do so to prevent missed or failed appointments.
29. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused by its failure to fully consider her hearing condition in its communications. Its failure to provide written updates likely added to the overall distress and uncertainty experienced during the repairs delays, and it failed to demonstrate that it learnt form her complaint when it continued to attempt calls and left voicemails despite being aware that this was not an accessible means of communication.

30. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024). The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
31. In its communication with us on 16 January 2024, the landlord said the resident had contacted it about outstanding repairs and asked for this to be raised as a new complaint, but there is no evidence to show that it handled her concerns formally.
32. The resident also raised dissatisfaction over a lack of action on 22 March 2024, and a further complaint on 10 April 2024. Despite chasing an update on her complaint around 25 April 2024, and on 1 May 2024, the landlord failed to formally log her concerns.
33. It acknowledged her communication from 28 June and 16 July 2024 as a formal complaint on 16 July 2024 and said it would contact her within 10 working days. Despite this, it did not provide its stage 1 complaint response until 14 February 2025, 7 months later. This was after further communication from the resident about her dissatisfaction in November 2024, and intervention from us on 29 January 2025. This was significantly outside of its 10-working day timeframe to respond to complaints at stage 1. We have not seen evidence to show that it appropriately updated her on the status of the complaint in line with its policy or the Code.
34. The landlord acted reasonably by recognising failures in its complaint communication within its stage 1 response. It offered £150 for the impact of its complaint handling.
35. However, the landlord also said it had tried to call the resident and left a voicemail as it was not able to get through. She had specifically asked the landlord not to call her, and to only use her phone number to text her about appointments due to being deaf. We have not seen evidence to show that it fully considered this when handling the complaint or sought to contact her by other means in view of her hearing difficulties. Its response also relied solely on information we had provided about the complaint on 29 January 2025, and there is a lack of evidence to show it reviewed her previous complaint communication or sought to fully address her concerns.
36. The resident escalated the complaint on 16 March 2025. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 25 April 2025, 28 working days later. This was slightly outside of its overall timescale of 25 working days to respond to complaints at stage 2. We have not seen evidence to show that it told her how it was handling the complaint following her escalation, or when she could expect to receive a response. This indicated that it had not learnt from previous communication failures. While the landlord recognised the delay, it would have been appropriate for it to have revised its offer of compensation for its complaint handling on this basis rather than maintain its offer of £150.
37. The landlord broadly recognised the impact of failings on the resident over a 31 month period within its stage 2 response, and offered a significant level of compensation. However, the resident had communicated extensively with the landlord via email and it could have done more to address her specific concerns about the individual repair matters (including the drain), that contractors and staff did not communicate with her effectively as a deaf person, and about additional energy costs due to needing to run a dehumidifier consistently. It would have been reasonable to address the individual elements of her complaint fully.
38. The landlord reiterated its offer of £150 compensation at stage 2. We have not found that this is proportionate taking into account the additional failings we identified and the unnecessary delays of around a year. While this went some way to put things right, it did not recognise the full impact of its failures during the complaint procedure. Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and ordered it to pay an additional £100 compensation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. The landlord’s repair records were unclear. While repairs were raised, it is not clear when the property was attended or the outcome of each visit. It should ensure that it has adequate systems in place to record repairs and outcomes to provide a clear audit trail.
40. The landlord has not demonstrated that it used its records and knowledge of the property to support its actions and provide a resolution to the resident. It should consider whether it has suitable systems in place to alert it where a property is subject to a large number of repair requests so it can provide lasting solutions for its residents.

Communication

41. The landlord failed to address the resident’s communication concerns or offer a meaningful response on multiple occasions. It also called the resident despite being aware that this was not an accessible means of communication. It should ensure that its staff are adequately trained on the importance of recognising a resident’s vulnerabilities and following reasonable adjustments when communicating with residents.