Peabody Trust (202225069)

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225069

Peabody Trust

26 August 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 damp and mould.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the:
1. Resident’s request for a permanent transfer to alternative accommodation.
2. Associated complaints.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, which started in August 2002. The property is described as a 2 bedroom property on the first floor of a block of flats. The resident advised us and the landlord that her children have respiratory health issues.
The landlord said the resident reported damp and mould in November 2022. The resident’s local councillor contacted the landlord on 9 January 2023 and asked it to urgently assess the resident’s living conditions and consider moving her into temporary accommodation.
The landlord’s repairs log indicates it arranged a mould wash and provided a dehumidifier to the resident on or around 10 January 2023. The landlord subsequently agreed specialist works to treat the damp and mould, including the installation of extractor fans and the refurbishment of the windows in the property.
The resident raised set a pre-action letter to the landlord through her solicitor on 21 January 2023. It said previous mould treatments had not resolved the damp and mould which was causing the resident and her family distress and loss of enjoyment of the property.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 1 February 2023. She said the ongoing damp and mould was making her children ill. She requested a transfer from the property and for works to be completed urgently. She said a supervisor attended 3 months before and assured her that her concerns would be taken seriously but no works had been done. The landlord responded on 2 February 2023 that someone would contact her to arrange an appointment.
The evidence indicates a joint inspection report was conducted as part of the pre-action protocol dated 20 February 2023. It identified damp and mould growth in the property. It recommended:
1. Mould wash to the affected areas.
2. Installation of thermos-boards, trickle vents and decorations.
3. Fill in, prepare cracks and decorations.
The landlord and the resident agreed an out of court settlement of the housing disrepair claim through her solicitor. The landlord’s evidence indicates the terms of the settlement were that the landlord would:
1. Pay a sum of £9,319.25 to settle the disrepair claim.
2. Complete all works agreed in the survey report of 20 February 2023 within 90 days of acceptance of the claim.
3. Provide temporary accommodation for the duration of the remedial works.
We have not had sight of the survey report as this formed part of the pre-action protocol.
The landlord noted on 25 September 2023 that it had agreed to provide the resident temporary accommodation, but noted it considered the property habitable. It said this was due to the resident’s concerns that staying in the property whilst works were being done could adversely affect their health. The resident moved into temporary accommodation in November 2023. Her personal belongings were removed in January 2024 and works were scheduled to start on 27 February 2024.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 9 April 2024. She complained that:
1. Long-term exposure to damp and mould had negatively affected her children’s health.
2. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the provision of her temporary accommodation.
3. The works being carried out were inadequate and moving back to the property would be unsafe for her children’s health.
The landlord contacted the resident on 24 June 2024 and advised that the property was ready to move back into. The resident disputed this and requested a copy of the completion report.
The resident referred the matter to us and we contacted the landlord. We asked it to respond to the complaint by 11 September 2024. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 3 October 2024. It said:
1. It would not address the damp and mould complaint due to an ongoing legal disrepair claim.
2. It acknowledged the resident had experienced distress and inconvenience because she had been moved to 3 different temporary accommodation placements.
The landlord offered £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused. The resident raised a complaint through her solicitor on 4 October 2024. She said the landlord should provide a copy of the completion report or rehouse her permanently.
We contacted the landlord on 7 October 2024 and asked it to escalate the complaint to stage 2 if the resident had not yet started legal proceedings. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 23 October 2024. It said:
1. Works were initially delayed due to the difficulty in finding alternative accommodation for the resident.
2. It believed the damp and mould had been resolved.
3. It had referred her case to its housing team to provide re-housing advice.
The landlord said it was unable to award additional compensation regarding the damp and mould, due to the amount previously awarded under the disrepair claim. It offered £250 for the distress and inconvenience due to its handling of the complaint. This is in addition to the £300 offered at stage 1.

Events after the complaints process had been completed

The resident contacted the landlord on 23 October 2024. She said it had not provided the report confirming works completed.
The landlord provided a list of works completed to the resident’s solicitor on 4 November 2024. It noted the resident agreed to return to the property once removals had been arranged.
The resident referred the matter to her local councillor on 6 November 2024. They asked the landlord to assess the condition of the property and confirm it was fit to move into. The landlord responded that the report had been shared with the resident’s solicitor. It said it was willing to support the resident back into the property by the end of the week.
A post works report dated 25 November 2024 confirmed all works agreed in the report of 20 February 2023 had been completed. The landlord noted on 22 January 2025 that there was no mould anywhere in the property. It said there was slight condensation, because the property was not being heated.
The local council (environmental health) contacted the landlord on 28 January 2025. It said following its inspection there was still high moisture readings on the walls of the living room. It said this would require further investigation and works to resolve it.
The landlord noted on 17 March 2025 that its roofers attended and identified a plumbing issue and advised that this would be resolved. The resident advised the landlord on 18 March 2025 that she had not moved back into the property as it was not safe. She said she had been living with family and friends.
The landlord noted on 24 March 2025 that this was an active legal disrepair case and no correspondence should be sent to the resident. It said:
1. No surveying appointments should be raised as the property was habitable.
2. Minor works to an external pipe were outstanding and currently underway with its contractor.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said the handling of the damp and mould has caused deterioration in her family’s health. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether a landlord’s action or inaction caused or worsened a health condition. Such matters are best suited to investigation through the courts or by way of a personal injury. We have given consideration to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s damp and mould policy recognises it can be distressing for its residents and can pose serious risk to health and safety. The policy states that it will:
1. Take into account the effect that damp, mould and condensation have on residents and prioritise work to tackle this.
2. Monitor all of the work it carries out tackle this issue for a year afterwards to ensure the works have been effective and resolved the issue.
3. Make sure that the resident has been contacted and is happy to close the issues that were raised.
4. Temporarily rehouse people in critical situations where there is a risk to their health and safety.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will aim to complete:
1. Routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
2. Major repairs within 60 calendar days.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord agrees to keep in good repair, the structure and exterior of the premises.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it would consider payments:
1. From £50 for a service failure that has occurred which is short to medium in duration that had a short term impact.
2. Over £1000 where a service failure has occurred, which was significant in terms of the event itself and (or) its duration causing serious short or long term impact.
The landlord said the resident reported damp and mould affecting the whole property in November 2022 (including reports of water penetration). It said its contractor attended the property on 25 November 2022. They subsequently recommended further investigations into the roof, brickwork and pointing, but the contractor was unable to access the property on the appointed date (29 November 2022).
The repair records provided by the landlord do not include the November 2022 report (or actions taken afterwards) making them unreliable. Therefore, we have not been able to determine if these works were carried out at a later date. It said the external gullies and rainwater pipes were cleaned, but it has not commented on the recommended works. For this reason, the landlord has not demonstrated it took reasonable steps to investigate and resolve any structural concerns in line with its responsibilities. We have also not seen evidence that it updated the resident on what it was doing to resolve the damp and mould within a reasonable timeframe.
The evidence indicates the landlord arranged a mould wash on 10 January 2023. It also dropped off a dehumidifier at the resident’s property around the same period. These were reasonable steps in mitigating the effects of damp and mould on the resident and her family, but this was approximately 6 weeks after the failed visit on 29 November 2022. This suggests a delay in addressing the damp and mould which fell outside the 28 calendar days for resolving routine repairs. However, the landlord noted in its repairs log that the resident refused the mould wash. While this is noted, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have engaged with the resident, to find out why she refused the treatment. From the evidence seen, it did not do so at the time.
The evidence indicates the local council contacted the landlord about the condition of the resident’s property. This prompted the landlord’s internal discussion on 18 January 2023 that a survey should be carried out to determine works required and ensure the resident was living in appropriate conditions. The landlord is obliged to carry out such services (under its damp and mould policy) without the need for intervention. It is concerning that it did not consider the impact on the resident until the local council’s involvement.
Following the survey, the landlord agreed specialist works to address the damp and mould. This followed the pre-action letter submitted by the resident’s solicitor on 23 January 2023. The pre-action letter noted that previous mould washes had been ineffective and the ongoing damp and mould had caused the resident distress and adversely impacted hers and her family’s health.
The resident also highlighted concerns on 1 February 2023 about her children’s health due to recurrent damp and mould. The landlord did not acknowledge her request to be moved out of the property in a timely manner. It noted in its internal discussions in July 2023 that the resident was not allowing access for works, as she was concerned about the impact of such works on her child (who has severe asthma). The landlord said the property was habitable and works could be completed whilst the family lived there. While this may be the case, the landlord had not acted reasonably as it failed to consider the resident’s personal circumstances. The evidence suggests temporary accommodation was agreed on in September 2023 with intervention from the resident’s solicitor. This unnecessarily prolonged the resident’s experience of living with damp and mould.
The evidence suggests the resident requested temporary accommodation in a specific area and one where she could directly access outdoor space. The landlord said this caused some delays as properties it considered suitable were refused by the resident. The evidence shows it was able to find accommodation that suited the resident’s needs in October 2023. However, communication around this was poor, which led to some distress and inconvenience for the resident. The landlord noted on 13 November 2023 that there was an issue with the keycode which meant the resident could not move in on time. It also delayed informing the resident that she would be moved to another accommodation on 7 December 2023. This caused the resident some distress as she only found out a day before the move.
The evidence suggests there were further delays in starting works at the property, due to delays in removing the resident’s personal belongings. The landlord noted it had to re-arrange removals on 3 to 4 occasions due to the resident’s personal circumstances which meant she was not available. The property was cleared on 11 January 2024. Based on the evidence seen, these delays were outside the landlord’s control. Following agreement of the schedule of works with the resident’s solicitor, the landlord started works on or around 27 February 2024.
There was a dispute between the landlord and the resident concerning the type of flooring to install in the property. This caused a delay. While the landlord had opened early communications on the issue in January 2024, the resident said her solicitor advised against agreeing any works until the scope of works had been agreed. The resident requested like-for-like replacement of her flooring, on the grounds that she had installed a higher quality than what the landlord was offering. Although the landlord’s repairs policy is silent on resident redecorations, it agreed to the resident’s request on 10 April 2024, to prevent further delays. It advised the resident to send copies of receipts as she advised this was available. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord.
The resident expressed concerns about the quality of works being carried in the property. She asked for the details of works, but the landlord advised her to obtain this from her solicitor. This was not a reasonable response. The resident was concerned that the treatment carried out had not addressed the root cause of the damp and mould. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained the works it had carried out to resolve her concerns. This would have been a positive step to rebuilding trust and their relationship.
The landlord duly contacted the resident in June 2024 that the repairs had been completed and that the property was ready for re-occupation. However, it has not demonstrated it invited her to a post-works inspection carried out on 24 June 2024. This was not reasonable, as it had previously noted in its internal communications that it would keep her informed. Despite the resident’s repeated request for a full report of works completed, it continually asked her to liaise with her solicitor even after she responded that she no had legal representation at the time.
There is evidence of some learning as the landlord offered the resident an opportunity to inspect the works carried out in September 2024. We have not been able to confirm from the evidence, if the resident accepted this proposal.
In its stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord apologised that the level of communication regarding the temporary accommodation was not to the expected standard. It acknowledged the inconvenience caused by having to move properties on more than one occasion. It assured the resident that it would use learning from the case to continually improve its services. In addition to the settlement for damages of £9,319.25, the landlord awarded £250 for the distress and inconvenience. However, it failed to respond to the resident’s request for the full details of works in the property. It reiterated its previous advice that she should obtain the information from her solicitor.
It was not until the landlord was contacted by the resident’s solicitor (newly appointed from November 2024) that it provided the list of completed works directly to them. This is a significant failing in its communication, as it disregarded the resident’s concerns for several months and missed several opportunities to provide an early resolution to the issue. It noted the resident subsequently agreed to move back into the property after the report was shared with her solicitor.
It was appropriate that the landlord ensured temporary accommodation remained available to the resident (likely until December 2024), whilst she disputed the works carried out. The survey completed by the landlord on 15 October 2024 noted the disrepair works were completed to the expected standards. We have also seen that the landlord instructed a follow-up survey (on 11 November 2024 post complaints) to the survey carried out in February 2023. The report on 25 November 2024 subsequently confirmed that all works, agreed as per the schedule, had been completed to a good standard. Based on the evidence from the expert, it was not unreasonable that the landlord advised the resident to move back into the property. It had no reason to believe the works completed had not satisfactorily addressed the damp and mould.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould would have normally been considered severe maladministration, given its communication and delays in assessing the need for temporary accommodation. We would usually order compensation above £1000 for serious failings that have had a detrimental impact on the resident. We note the landlord has already paid an amount of £9,319.25 compensation (paid to her solicitor in October 2023). It awarded an additional £250 (in October 2024) in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication. We consider the redress offered reasonably addressed the failings identified. It also worked proactively to carry out extensive repairs within a reasonable timeframe, although it would have been reasonable to take these steps prior to external intervention.
However, we have identified that the landlord persistently failed to respond to the resident’s request for details of works completed in the property. This made her feel ignored and that her concerns were not being taken seriously. The landlord correctly noted in its stage 2 response that it is crucial it addresses any concerns raised by residents despite a disrepair claim. However, it missed another opportunity to address the resident’s long-standing query when it responded to her. This caused the resident some frustration.
We also note the resident and the local council raised further concerns about damp in the property approximately 6 months after the repairs. This was still within the 12-month period stated in its policy for addressing after care issues following damp and mould works. However, the landlord has not demonstrated it addressed these issues accordingly. The resident incurred time and trouble in chasing up the matter from January to March 2025.
While it assured the resident that further works would be carried out, it later decided it would no longer communicate with her due to a disrepair claim. This shows the landlord had not learned from its previous errors. This means it had not taken steps to satisfy itself that the repairs carried out had effectively put things right for the resident. Due to the failures identified in its communication and failure to follow the damp and mould after care process, we have found maladministration.
To bring the landlord in line with its commitment to after care works, following damp and mould works, we have ordered it to follow-up any outstanding repairs in the property.
Regarding its communication, the landlord said it had provided feedback to its staff, reinforcing the correct procedures to follow when dealing with similar cases. We have ordered the landlord to carry out a lessons learned exercise to ensure that residents’ enquiries are dealt with accordingly while there is an ongoing disrepair case.
The compensation awarded by the landlord would have been sufficient to resolve the resident’s complaint regarding damp and mould reports, because it was consistent with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s own compensation policy. However, due to the failures identified we have ordered an additional £300 for the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble to the resident. This brings the total compensation for distress and inconvenience to £550. This is due to the poor communication and the landlord’s failure to follow its damp and mould policy accordingly. This is in line with the landlord’s and our own remedies guidance.

Resident’s request for a permanent transfer to alternative accommodation

The landlord’s rehousing policy sets out the way it rehouses its residents. It stated that:
1. It will assess all applicants to determine whether they fall into one of its priority bands for an internal transfer.
2. It will arrange for medical applications to be independently assessed where we believe that the applicant may fall within our health and disability band.
3. Permanent and temporary transfers will be considered on assessment and recommendation by a building surveyor, the repairs team and the neighbourhoods team who determines it will be unsuitable for the tenant to remain due to the works required, and other housing alternatives have been explored.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states that mutual exchange is the legal right of secure and assured tenants to swap their tenancies.
The landlord’s alternative accommodation policy states that:
1. It may sometimes need to move a household out of their home on a temporary or permanent basis when works need to take place.
2. Where a permanent move is needed it will contact the resident and explain the reasons for this and the process it will follow.
The landlord provided temporary accommodation to the resident in October 2023. While the resident was in temporary accommodation, she requested a permanent transfer on 9 April 2024. She said her daughter would be at risk if she had to return to the property (her main accommodation). In offering temporary alternative accommodation while repairs were completed, the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about any possible risks to her and her children’s health by continuing to live with damp and mould.
The landlord provided re-housing advice to the resident on 11 April and 15 May 2024. This included its mutual exchange scheme (mutual home swap) which it said was a quicker way to finding a new home. In response to further concerns raised by the resident on 17 June 2024 the landlord advised her (on 24 June 2024) to submit an application for a housing transfer through its website and provided a link for ease of access. From the evidence seen we have not been able to determine if the resident applied for re-housing or if she had an existing application.
The landlord also sent her a medical assessment form on 4 July 2024 to complete and return for further assessment. This was a reasonable response. The landlord had moved the resident from her property on a short-term basis. There was no suggestion, from the evidence seen, that this would be a permanent arrangement.
The landlord reiterated its advice in its stage 2 response on 23 October 2024. It advised the resident that she would need to provide medical evidence to its housing team, demonstrating why the property was unsuitable. It also said this would be assessed by an independent panel of medical professionals, who will determine her eligibility. The landlord explained that finding a new home could take time depending on her specific criteria and it assured her that it had referred her case to the relevant team for further assistance.
The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s response was reasonable and in line with the relevant policies. The landlord provided temporary accommodation while works carried out in the property. It did not deem it necessary, following the reports by its experts that a permanent transfer would be required in this case. It appropriately referred the resident’s case to its housing team to assist the resident with her rehousing request. Therefore, there was no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request for a permanent transfer to alternative accommodation.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by its organisation. The policy further states that the landlord will:
1. Not deal with a complaint where legal action has started, such as the claim form and details of claim, having been filed at court.
2. Aim to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
3. Provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received if it needs more time.
The landlord did not provide a formal response to the resident’s complaint raised on 1 February 2023. It is noted that it acknowledged the correspondence, but it did not respond in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord did not learn from this as it took approximately 6 months to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint raised on 9 April 2024. While the resident did not initially use the word “complaint”, this was clearly an expression of dissatisfaction and should have been logged as a complaint. The landlord’s policy is clear on what stage of a disrepair claim it would not accept a complaint. Although it engaged in several emails with the resident, these were not formal complaint responses. It did not log the complaint until we contacted it on 4 September 2024 and asked it do so. This was a failure by the landlord which caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
While the landlord provided a stage 1 response on 3 October 2024 it failed to address the damp and mould issues and again misinterpreted its complaints policy that this was a disrepair case. It took further intervention by us on 7 October 2024 before the landlord fully addressed the matter. It is concerning that the landlord did not respond appropriately until she escalated the matter to us. This caused her distress, frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the complaints.
The landlord acknowledged it failed to deal with the complaints appropriately and it apologised to the resident for the inconvenience and uncertainty caused. It said feedback had been given to staff, reinforcing the correct procedures to follow when both a complaint and a letter of claim are received. This shows some learning on its part. It offered the resident £300 as compensation for:
1. Its failure to address the damp and mould issues at stage 1 leading to our intervention.
2. The avoidable distress and inconvenience caused by delays in addressing the complaints effectively.
This is in line with the provisions set out in its compensation policy and an appropriate remedy for the failings identified. For this reason the landlord has offered reasonable redress in its handling of the associated complaints.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of our Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of our Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a permanent transfer to alternative accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of our Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
1. Pay the resident a total of £550 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of damp and mould.
  1. This is inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord via the complaint procedure but not the disrepair settlement compensation. Therefore, the landlord may deduct from the total any compensation that it may have already been paid in relation to the complaint.
2. Provide documentary evidence to us which demonstrates it has paid this compensation.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Contact the resident regarding the outstanding repairs identified to the soil pipe as noted on 17 March 2025 and detail its position in respect of the outstanding repairs. This must include:
  1. A scope of works or details of further exploratory works (if any), including whether any works will affect the resident’s home
  2. Likely timescales to start and complete any works (if any)
  3. Whether any temporary alternative accommodation will be required
2. Assess if any damp and mould works are still required following the council’s communication in January 2025. This should include an inspection of the property and a report any likely works required. Where works are identified, it must outline the scope of works required and an expected date for completion. A copy should be provided to this Service.
3. Carry out a lessons learned review of this case to ensure that residents’ enquiries are dealt with accordingly while there is an ongoing disrepair case. The landlord must produce a report with its key findings. It should share this with the business area and provide a copy to us.
4. Provide documentary evidence of compliance with this order.

Recommendation

Pay the resident the £300 awarded for its handling of the associated complaints.