Peabody Trust (202502124)

Background

1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. This is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat in a period conversion. The tenancy started in August 2024, but she says she attempted to move into the property on 9 October 2024. She states that she has been unable to live there, due to the drainage and plumbing issues in the bathroom. The monthly rent was £865.71 at the time of the complaint (exclusive of service charges).

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of plumbing and drainage issues in her bathroom, and a request for a temporary move.
   2. Her request to be compensated for damage to carpets and her clothing.
   3. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the plumbing and drainage in her bathroom.
   2. No maladministration in her request to be compensated for damage to carpets and clothing.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. In summary, the Ombudsman found that the landlord:
   1. Did not abide by its repairs policy.
   2. Did not consider the resident’s request to be temporarily moved.
   3. Abided by its compensation policy and tenancy agreement in respect of compensation requests for personal effects.
   4. Did not abide by its complaints policy or our Complaint Handling Code (The Code).

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.

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.

5. The landlord is responsible for the structure of the building under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985). Its policy states that it meets all other legal and statutory requirements, including The Homes (Fitness for Habitation Act). It is responsible for water supply, drainage and sanitary conveniences and the disposal of wastewater.
6. Its repairs policy says that it will complete all emergency works within 24 hours. This includes blocked or leaking foul drains and internal uncontainable leaks. It aims to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days, via an appointment system. Major repairs will be completed within 60 calendar days. This includes complex repairs which need multi trades and bathroom replacements. If residents report that works were unsuccessful, the landlord’s contractor must attend within 5 calendar days to correct the defect.
7. There is no dispute that there were delays to the repairs to the plumbing and drainage issues in the resident’s shower room. The landlord apologised for this, paid the resident £1618.47 compensation, and carried out various repairs. However, it did not do enough to remedy the adverse effect on the resident. The resident reports the drainage issues are ongoing. She said she has been unable to use the property. She has sent us a date stamped video (6 October 2025) showing a significant amount of water all over the bathroom floor and issues with the shower not draining.
8. It was appropriate that the landlord’s contractor attended within 24 hours when the resident first reported drainage issues and flooding in her bathroom on 4 October 2024. The drainage contractor cleared the blockage. It advised a plumber would need to attend as well because the shower pump was running slowly. This showed that it adopted a multi faceted approach to complete the works.
9. However, the resident reported further multiple issues with her shower not draining from 7 October 2024 until 18 December 2024. The landlord’s drainage contractor attended during each report to clear the drain blockages. But there is no evidence that the landlord carried out any follow-on plumbing investigations until 8 January 2025. This caused the resident frustration and time and trouble. It also impacted on the enjoyment of her home. This is particularly pertinent, as the resident advised the landlord on several occasions that she had not moved into the property, due to the drainage and plumbing issues.
10. On 8 January 2025, the landlord’s repair records show that the property needed a new shower pump. It fitted this on 24 January 2025. The landlord’s repair records show that there was some confusion as to what works were needed to rectify the situation up to this point.
11. We understand that leaks and drainage may be complex works and require various investigations. But it is not appropriate that the landlord did not carry out any further investigations until 8 January 2025. Had it adopted a more inquisitorial approach sooner, then the issues may have been resolved in a timely manner. This delay continued to impact on the enjoyment of the resident’s home and could have impacted on the landlord/resident relationship.
12. Also, the repair records show that the resident reported continued issues with her shower drainage from 29 January 2025 to 12 February 2025, after the new shower pump was installed. Although a drainage contractor attended on each occasion to clear the blockages, there is no evidence that the landlord attempted any in-depth investigations to establish the cause of the ongoing drainage issues.
13. Also, in its stage 2 complaint response of 24 February 2025, the landlord said it was looking into the drainage smell being an “estate wide issue.”. There is no evidence on file that it carried out any investigations on drainage in the block. This is inappropriate and caused the resident frustration, as it did not communicate any actions with her.
14. Further, in its stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident that “all works were completed”. This is despite her reporting that the issues were ongoing up to the stage 2 complaint response. And the fact that its contractor did not attend the pre-arranged appointment of that day.
15. Also, the landlord’s repair records show that the drainage issues were ongoing as of 15 July 2025. And the resident has sent us video evidence that the drainage issues have not been resolved and are ongoing as of 6 October 2025.
16. The landlord’s alternative accommodation policy says that it may need to move a household into alternative temporary accommodation when works need to take place. It will only move residents if there has been extensive damage from a flood which makes the property uninhabitable. It also may move residents when a property requires extensive works. But it will carry out improvement works and major works whilst residents remain in their home, whenever possible. It will assess each case on an individual basis.
17. Although it may have been reasonable for the resident to remain in the home, whilst works were carried out, there is no evidence that it assessed the resident’s individual situation. This is not resident focussed and contrary to its policy, regardless of the outcome.
18. The resident told the landlord several times that she could not live in her home due to the drainage issues. The landlord’s compensation policy says it awards 25% of the monthly rent for the loss of use of a bathroom.
19. The landlord awarded a 25% room loss payment for the lack of use of bathroom. This was reasonable. But it did not offer the resident alternative bathing facilities, such as use of an empty property or signpost her to other amenities, whilst works were carried out. It would have been appropriate to do this. Particularly, as it acknowledged that the resident could not use the bathroom, by offering her a room loss payment.
20. The landlord should have assessed the resident’s situation, regardless of the outcome and explored other temporary solutions so that the resident had bathing options. The fact that it did not, is a failing which impacted on the resident’s enjoyment of her home and caused her distress and inconvenience.
21. There were delays in dealing with the plumbing and drainage issues and the issue is ongoing. There is no evidence the landlord carried out any investigations to the drainage in the block. Or it tried to ascertain the reasons for the continued drainage issues. Also, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the offer of a temporary move or alternative bathing facilities. As such, we have found maladministration.

22. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that it is not responsible for home contents or personal belongings. Its compensation policy says that residents should have home contents insurance. This should cover accidental damage, loss or water damage. If residents claim that the landlord is responsible, it will thoroughly investigate before involving its insurers. If damage has been directly caused by its contractors, it will take appropriate action to rectify the situation.
23. It was reasonable that in its stage 2 complaint response of 24 February 2025, the landlord clarified its position on any possible damage to the resident’s belongings. It told the resident that it recommended all residents have their own home contents insurance. It also directed her to its insurance team to pursue any claims she may wish to make. This was an appropriate response, and in line with its policy.
24. It is not in the scope of the Ombudsman to determine liability for damages. This would be up to insurer to investigate and reach a decision.
25. The landlord gave the resident details of its public liability insurance to file a claim and acted within its policies. As such, we have found no maladministration.

26. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint until 26 November 2024. And did not respond to her stage 2 complaint until 24 February 2025. These are unreasonable delays and contrary to its policy.
27. There is no dispute that there were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. It has apologised for this and offered the resident £150 compensation. However, it did not do enough.
28. This Service’s complaint handling code (the Code) sets out that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition. And provide clear reasons for any decision, referencing the relevant policy, law or good practice.
29. The resident complained that the landlord had not considered her request to be temporarily moved. The landlord did acknowledge the resident’s request for a rent refund and provided its reasons for refusing. It also offered the resident a room loss payment of £1318.47. But it did not respond to her complaint about the landlord’s refusal to consider a temporary move. It did not acknowledge this in its complaint response, did not investigate this and did not provide a reason for refusing to consider the request.
30. Although the financial compensation was sufficient, in line with our remedies guidance, we are unable to find reasonable redress. This is because the landlord did not respond to all elements of the complaint, and did not acknowledge the complaint about a temporary move. As the landlord did not respond to all elements of the complaint, we have made a finding of service failure.

Learning

31. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord told the resident it had learned from her complaint. It said it had escalated the need for repairs to be identified in a timely manner. But it then failed to complete the repairs to an appropriate standard. It also failed to carry out any extensive investigations to identify the cause of the drainage issues. This indicates that the landlord did not put into action the learning it had identified.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord did not correctly monitor its complaints process, which indicates a record keeping failing. It did not consider every element of the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 complaint response. This is a record keeping failing.
33. The resident told the landlord that the completed works had not remedied her drainage situation. But in its stage 2 complaint response, it advised her that all works were complete, despite her reports. This points to poor record keeping and issues with the monitoring of works.
34. The landlord’s repair records of 4 October 2024, show that a plumber would need to attend the resident’s property as the drainage works were multi-faceted. A plumber did not attend until January 2025. And then it was established that the resident would need a new shower pump. Had a plumber attended sooner, it could have escalated the matter to the correct contractor sooner. The landlord sent a drainage contractor on several occasions. It missed an opportunity to check its records and have the issue further investigated sooner.

Communication

35. Had the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints in a timelier manner, it may have resolved the repair issues sooner.