Peabody Trust (202339268)

Decision
Case ID	202339268
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	30 October 2025

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, under a shared ownership scheme. This is a 2-bedroom house, and he lives there with his wife and children. He bought the property in 2004, from a previous leaseholder.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. A damaged roof, roof leaks, and associated damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

What we can’t look at

We are aware there is a dispute about who is responsible for the repair of the roof, under the terms of the lease agreement. This is a question that requires legal scrutiny, and we are not legally qualified to make this decision. The resident may wish to seek legal advice. We will investigate whether the landlord provided its position in a clear and timely manner.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a damaged roof, roof leaks and associated damp and mould.
There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It did not clarify its position for many months. It failed to communicate the reasons for the delay. This caused him frustration and confusion.
The information on the landlord’s website is confusing, in respect of repair responsibilities for leaseholders.
The landlord’s complaint handling was poor. It did not abide by its policy or our complaint handling code. However, it apologised and offered the resident £300 compensation for this.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 05 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays in clarifying its position regarding the repair responsibilities. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. This should be paid, in addition to the £150 already offered.	No later than 05 December 2025
3	Website information order – repair responsibilities for leaseholders The landlord should clarify its position on roof repairs and structural defects in terms of house owners. It needs to clarify if house owners are responsible for the repairs of structural defects in their home (including roof repairs).	No later than 05 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
An order of reasonable redress is made for the landlord’s complaint handling, on the understanding that the landlord pays the £300 already offered. It should pay the £300 compensation directly to the resident, if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 December 2023 to 1 January 2024	The resident made 2 reports of a roof leak, which was leaking into his child’s bedroom.
12 January 2024	The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. He said: There were approximately 6 joists missing in the roof space. Felt was coming away and not insulating the roof properly. Wood in the loft was bowing and water was coming through the ceiling into his child’s bedroom. There was mould in the bedrooms, including in the wardrobes and in other areas of the house. Nobody had attended to look at the issues. He wanted the landlord to fix the roof leak and the mould issues.
6 March 2024 to 18 March 2024	Both the landlord’s contractor and its surveyor attended the property.
2 April 2024	The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It said: It apologised for not responding to the resident’s reports of a roof leak sooner. It had raised a repair on 1 December 2023. But the job was shut down as it could not reach the resident on his phone. Its surveyor had attended on 18 March 2024 to inspect the roof and loft areas causing the damp and mould issue. He noted that the previous leaseholders had removed wooden beams from the roof. This was before the resident had moved in. A structural surveyor would also need to inspect the roof. He was unsure if either the resident or the landlord was responsible for repairs. The landlord had requested a copy of the lease from the land registry, as it could not find a copy online. Once it had a copy of the lease, it could confirm who was responsible for the maintenance of the roof. It apologised for the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling delays. It offered the resident £200 compensation for this.
1 May 2024	The landlord emailed the resident. It told him it had received a copy of the lease which indicated it was the resident’s responsibility to repair the roof. And he could claim the costs through his building’s insurance.
9 May 2024	The resident made a stage 2 complaint to the landlord. He said: The landlord’s contractors had inspected the property. They had told him that as the roof was external, the landlord would be responsible for repairing this. There was damp and mould in his child’s bedroom. He did not want to make a claim through his own building’s insurance. He did not cut the joists out of the roof, so the landlord should repair the roof.
16 July 2024	The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It said: The resident’s lease stated that leaseholders could not make any structural alterations to the property or carry out non structural changes without the landlord’s permission. The previous owner had not asked the landlord for permission to carry out structural repairs. If the damage to the roof was due to the actions of the previous owner, then the resident could not claim on his insurance. The insurance would only cover structural damage if the landlord had given permission for the works (which it had not). The resident bought the property “as seen” so he may wish to contact his conveyancer to see if there was an indemnity policy when he bought the property. (the resident may have bought an indemnity policy in respect of any breach of the lease). The breach in this case, was that alterations were carried out without the consent of the landlord. If the resident did not have an indemnity policy, he would need to get retrospective consent for the alteration. Or return the property to its original condition. As the resident was the current owner of the property, the resident would be responsible for all costs in relation to the necessary roof repairs (if he did not have an indemnity policy). The resident may wish to arrange an independent specialist inspection of the roof. If the roof damage was not caused by the structural alterations, the resident could raise a claim to his building’s insurer. The insurer would then pursue the matter. Shared owners are responsible for all repairs to their property, regardless of the share they own. The lease agreement clarifies that the landlord had no repair obligations to the house itself. The landlord should have clarified this with the resident sooner. It did not do so, and this delayed any future actions the resident may take in respect of the roof and damp and mould. It offered the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience and the impact on the resident’s family. It offered £300 for the delays in responding to both stage 1 and stage 2 complaints.
Referral to the Ombudsman 18 July 2024.	The resident contacted this Service. He wanted the landlord to repair the roof and resolve the damp and mould in the house, caused by the leaks in the roof.

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.

Complaint	A damaged roof, roof leaks and associated damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

The resident’s lease states that leaseholders are responsible for repairs to their property. It says that residents must not make any structural repairs or additions without the previous consent of the landlord. Residents are responsible for the costs of any works needed in respect of structural repairs. This includes solicitors’ costs, and surveyors’ fees.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that leaseholders are normally responsible for all repairs within their home. The landlord is responsible for communal repairs and repairs resulting from its action or inaction. Residents’ individual leases take precedence when determining repair responsibilities.
The landlord’s repairs responsibilities on its website, in respect of shared owners and leaseholders says that:
1. The landlord is responsible for roof damage (there is no differentiation between houses and flats).
2. The landlord is responsible for water ingress into a roof (There is no differentiation between houses and flats).
3. Leaseholders are responsible for their own individual lofts. The landlord is responsible for shared lofts.
4. The landlord is responsible for damp caused by building defects. But the resident is responsible for condensation and mould.
There is no dispute that the landlord took too long to clarify its position on the repair responsibilities, in respect of the roof and damp and mould. It apologised to the resident for this and offered him £150 compensation. But it did not do enough to provide redress for the frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue. Or the impact on the enjoyment of the resident’s home. It did not keep the resident regularly updated throughout the process and did not explain the reason for the delays. So, it failed to manage his expectations. We appreciate that there would have been delays whilst it sought legal advice. But it did not update the resident of its actions. And the records show that it did not seek legal advice until July 2024.
The lease states that residents are responsible for all repairs to their home. It is also clear that residents may not make structural changes without the prior consent of the landlord.
However, the information on the landlord’s website is unclear. It states that it is responsible for roof repairs and water ingress. And for any damp relating to structural damage. There is no differentiation on its website between repair responsibilities for house and flat owners in respect of roof repairs. This is inappropriate and could lead to confusion and misunderstanding. The resident read the information on the landlord’s website and was under the impression that the landlord would repair the roof.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that residents should always refer to their lease for specific repair responsibilities. This was reasonable. However, the information on its website is confusing. It should clarify that it will only repair damage to a roof and damp caused by structural issues in respect of flats. It should be clearer that roof repairs belonging to individual houses are a resident’s responsibility. The fact that it did not do this, is a failing, which caused the resident confusion and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
The landlord did tell the resident that the repair of the roof was his responsibility. But it took too long to do so. The resident reported a leak to his roof in December 2023. The landlord did not advise the resident that he was responsible for the repairs until 1 May 2024. The landlord’s communication records show that there was confusion as to where the responsibility lay for rectifying the issues. The landlord initially advised the resident that it was responsible, then did not tell the resident that he was responsible for the repairs for 5 months. It failed to update the resident in the meantime and did not manage his expectations.
Although we understand that the landlord may need time to investigate, this is an unreasonable time for the resident to be informed. This is 5 months, from when he first reported the roof leak. This caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing the repairs and distress and frustration. Had the landlord investigated this sooner, the resident could have then made any plans to carry out any repairs on his property.
Damp and mould are a significant hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Although we understand that leaseholders are responsible for damp and mould in their homes, according to the repairs policy, the landlord should have told the resident sooner. Had it done so, the resident could have put plans in place to rectify the situation. The delay caused him distress and inconvenience and impacted on the enjoyment of his home.
Also, it did not clarify its position on any insurance liability regarding the roof repairs until its stage 2 response of 16 July 2024. This is over 7 months after the resident reported issues with the roof and an inappropriate delay.
In its email of 1 May 2024, it told the resident he could claim the cost of roof repairs on his building’s insurance. In its stage 2 response of 16 July 2024, it then told the resident that the insurance would be unlikely to pay, if the damage to the roof was caused by unauthorised structural changes.
Although it was reasonable that it set out its position, it should have done this sooner. Had it sought legal advice sooner, it could have updated the resident in a more timely manner. Also, it did not update the resident that it was seeking legal advice. It failed to manage his expectations. The delays in communication and conflicting information caused the resident frustration and confusion. It also impacted on the resident/landlord relationship.
It missed an opportunity to communicate the reason for the delays. It did not update the resident that it was seeking legal advice. In its stage 2 response, it had the opportunity to explain the reasons for the delays and it did not do so.
There were delays and a lack of consistent communication with the resident. And he was given conflicting information. There was also a lack of clarity on its website. As such, we have made a finding of maladministration.
We have awarded an additional £300 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident. And the landlord has acknowledged its failings but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaints policy and this Service’s complaint handling code (The Code) state that stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days of acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days of receipt.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay up to £300 for a failure to follow its complaints policy, causing a significant impact on the resident.
There is no dispute that there were unreasonable delays in both the landlord’s complaint responses. Also, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaints until intervention from the Ombudsman. This is unreasonable. But it has acknowledged the failings and apologised. It has also offered the resident £300 compensation.
As the landlord has apologised and offered the resident £300 compensation, we have made a finding of reasonable redress. This finding is made on the understanding that the landlord pays the resident £300, if it has not already done so.

Learning

The landlord’s communication records show that there was some confusion as to who would be responsible for repairs to the resident’s roof. It did not have a copy of the lease on file and was unable to provide a clear response to the resident regarding the repair responsibilities. It did not clarify its position on all the issues until 15 July 2024. This is 7 months after the resident reported the roof leaks. This was unreasonable. The landlord should ensure it is aware of repair responsibilities.
Also, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations. It should have communicated the reasons for the delays in clarifying its position. It should have told him it was seeking legal advice and this may take some time. This is particularly pertinent as there was an element of risk in line with HHSRS.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not log or acknowledge the resident’s complaint until intervention from this service. It failed to log the complaints in a timely manner. This could have contributed to the substantive issue being resolved. The landlord should ensure it logs and responds to complaints in line with The Code and its own complaints policy.

Communication

The communication with the resident was poor. The landlord took too long to respond to his complaint. Also, it gave him conflicting information throughout the complaint in respect of repair responsibilities. It should ensure it provides clear and consistent information in a timely manner.