Peabody Trust (202229691)

Decision
Case ID	202229691
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since 2010. The landlord told this service the resident had been identified as having a mental health vulnerability. The resident reported that her property, a maisonette in a block, was cold and draughty. She also reported experiencing frequent odours permeating into her property from the flat below.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that her property was cold and draughty, and odours were permeating from the flat below.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. maladministration in its response to the resident’s concerns that her property was cold, draughty and odours were permeating from the flat below.
   2. reasonable redress in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to the resident’s concerns that her property was cold and draughty, and that odours were permeating from the flat below.

5. The landlord did not have accurate repair records. It repeatedly ignored the resident’s contacts despite her vulnerability and did not respond appropriately to her disclosures of suicidal thoughts.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord acknowledged shortcomings in its management of the complaint and offered both compensation and an apology.

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 to the resident in writing or in person, as deemed appropriate, 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 08 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £650 made up as follows: £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in addressing the reported draughts, temperature and odours and the resident’s time, trouble and distress in chasing updates £150 for failing to escalate safeguarding concerns This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide evidence of payment by the due date. This award replaces the £475 previously offered by the landlord for the “time, trouble and inconvenience in recognition of the time taken to complete the necessary works”. The landlord may deduct from the total figure above any payments it has already paid.	No later than 08 January 2026
3	Inspection order (survey and data logging exercise) The landlord must contact the resident to arrange a survey and temperature data logging. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure these are completed by the due date. These must be carried out by a suitably qualified person/contractor. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the above, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor/contractor: Carries out another air tightness and smoke survey at the property and produces a written report with photographs. Carries out temperature data logging for at least 3 consecutive weeks between December 2025 and February 2026. The survey report/s must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of the draughts, cold temperature and odour permeation. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve any issues together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issues (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works. The landlord must share the outcome of the survey and data logging with the resident and this service.	No later than 09 February 2026
4	Staff Training Order The landlord already has an adult safeguarding policy in place. It is ordered to evidence it has arranged for safeguarding training for relevant staff members within the last 6 months. Alternatively, it must arrange to do so and provide evidence to this service of its intentions.	No later than 08 January 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If the landlord has not already done so, it should contact the resident to discuss whether she has any current support needs, and signpost or refer her accordingly.
The landlord should review and strengthen its safeguarding policy to provide clearer guidance on its obligations in cases involving self-harm and disclosures of suicidal ideation.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 March 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said she had emailed several times regarding heat loss in her property, which she reported had been going on for 13 years. She referenced being unhappy with the quality of works to windows and skirting. She also said the property was full of food/smoke odours. She said she felt ignored by the landlord.
30 August 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response which said: its records indicated there were no defects or outstanding repairs. It was willing to provide her with survey reports and photos to evidence the work it had completed at her property. it was aware the resident had had an independent “leakage” survey carried out and asked for a copy of the report. it was concerned by some of the resident’s comments and offered support from its safeguarding team. it apologised for the delay and frustration experienced with her complaint. it offered £500 compensation, made up of £250 for time, trouble and disruption, and £250 for poor complaint handling.
14 October 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. The landlord recorded the resident had said: the issues remained regardless of any actions it had taken, and she had video evidence to show this. the issues were affecting her living conditions and her mental and physical health.
26 October 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said that: because of its policy and limited historical reports it could only consider her concerns from August 2022. following an air pressure testing and smoke survey report it had instructed, the identified works had been completed. It said these repairs had been inspected on 4 January 2023. it would carry out a further inspection if convenient to the resident. it wanted to review a copy of the air leakage report she had arranged privately. It confirmed it would arrange for any necessary work identified in the report to be carried out and it would reimburse her costs for the survey. should the resident wish to pursue an insurance claim for the health effects she had referenced, it gave advice on how to pursue this. it was sorry for the delays in the complaint handling. it revised its offer of compensation to £645. This was made up of: £150 for complaint administration at stage 1 £20 for the delay in escalating the complaint £475 for time trouble and inconvenience in recognition of the time taken to complete the necessary works
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 11 February 2024 the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint.

 

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	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that her property was cold and draughty, and that odours were permeating from the flat below
Finding	Maladministration

7. The evidence provided to this Service about events before and during the resident’s complaint is limited. However, we received extensive documentation covering the period from August 2023 to January 2025. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response in October 2023, the resident continued to report unresolved issues. As the landlord has supplied evidence relevant to this later period, and given that the substantive issues reportedly remained unresolved, it would not benefit either party to restart the complaints process. Therefore, we have included the landlord’s actions during and after its complaints process, up to January 2025, in our assessment.
8. In January 2021, the resident arranged her own airtightness and smoke survey. This showed an air leakage rate of 8.28m³/hr/m², above the recommended 5m³/hr/m² for new homes. The smoke test revealed leaks around patio doors, wall-floor junctions, internal door frames, stairs, behind kitchen cupboards, and service entries, with more possible in inaccessible areas. The survey report was not shared with the landlord at that time.
9. In October 2022, 7 months before the resident raised a complaint, the landlord commissioned its own survey, which also identified air leakage above recommended levels. It issued repair orders to seal gaps and refit units. However, a subsequent survey in October 2023 found the same air leaks, indicating that any earlier repairs were either ineffective or incomplete. As a year had passed since the first survey was completed, the unresolved issues significantly exceeded the landlord’s 60-day target for programmed repairs or specialist works. The prolonged delay caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident.
10. There is no evidence the landlord arranged any repairs following the October 2023 survey, despite the report identifying air leakage in multiple areas of the property. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord claimed that repairs had been completed and inspected on 4 January 2023. However, it did not provide supporting evidence or details of the work carried out. This indicates the landlord either failed to complete the repairs, breaching its repairs policy, or failed to provide evidence of completion, which was a record-keeping failure.
11. The resident requested another survey in November 2023, which the landlord agreed to in its stage 2 complaint response. Given the resident’s ongoing concerns, this was an appropriate step. The landlord also promised a visit from its housing team around the same time. However, despite the resident chasing this several times, there is no evidence a visit or inspection led to additional repairs being raised or even took place at all. Again, this indicates the landlord either failed to keep to its commitments or there was a record-keeping failing as it was unable to provide evidence of actions taken.
12. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) requires landlords to keep homes free from serious hazards, including excess cold. In January 2024, the resident reported her bedroom was 11.3°C with the heating on, well below the recommended minimum. Between November 2023 and June 2024, she raised concerns about cold temperatures or draughts 11 times and was still raising this issue in January 2025. The landlord failed to meet its duty under the HHSRS. It did not investigate the resident’s continued reports that her property was too cold and potentially hazardous.
13. The landlord was not proactive in its communication with the resident. She contacted it numerous times without getting a response, notably 9 times between December 2023 and February 2024. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report “Repairing Trust” highlights that poor communication often leads to a breakdown of trust, especially when landlords fail to consider how repairs affect health and wellbeing. The landlord repeatedly failed to respond to the resident’s contacts, leaving her without updates or reassurance. Failing to respond to multiple messages over long periods, while being aware of the resident’s vulnerability, showed poor communication practices and a lack of commitment to resolving complex concerns. This was contrary to good practice.
14. The landlord’s Adult Safeguarding Policy states it will respond to safeguarding concerns promptly in a considered and proportionate manner. It also states it will record incidents and allegations of abuse, harm or neglect accurately and in a timely manner, and record and share information appropriately with other professionals and statutory agencies.
15. The 2014 Care Act places a duty on housing providers to cooperate with local authorities to safeguard and support vulnerable adults. Between December 2023 and April 2024, the resident mentioned thoughts of ending her life on 6 occasions, reportedly due to poor living conditions and inaction on outstanding repairs.
16. While the landlord offered the support in its stage 1 complaint response and made a support referral in February 2024, we have not seen evidence that safeguarding concerns were formally raised or that a referral to the local authority’s adult social care was considered. Earlier opportunities to respond in a prompt, person-centred way were missed. The landlord failed to record details of actions it took, or decided not to take, and did not ensure appropriate referrals were considered for a resident it knew to be vulnerable, and who had repeatedly expressed concerns over her mental health.
17. Overall, in this case, the landlord repeatedly ignored the resident’s contacts, delayed follow-up, and did not prioritise repairs despite knowing she was vulnerable. The landlord showed poor repair record-keeping and inadequate engagement with the resident. In addition to the above, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s mental health disclosures, which, given her known vulnerabilities, represents maladministration. Although the landlord offered redress, the amount was not proportionate to the extent and duration of the service failures experienced by the resident. Consequently, we have made an order for additional compensation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

18. The landlord took too long to reply to the resident’s complaint, issuing its stage 1 complaint response 5 months after the resident had complained. Its complaints procedure states that stage 1 complaints should be answered within 10 working days. There’s no evidence the landlord agreed an extension with the resident. This was an unreasonable delay and a service failure.
19. The stage 1 response didn’t set out what the landlord understood the complaint to be, so its findings lacked context. It failed to follow its complaint procedure, which requires responses to address all points of the complaint. However, the landlord offered reimbursement for the inspection and committed to a further surveyor visit to resolve any outstanding issues. It issued an apology, which was sincere and empathetic, in line with the Ombudsman’s best practice guidance for apologies.
20. The landlord planned to hand-deliver its stage 2 complaint response because the resident was vulnerable. This approach was appropriate in the circumstances because it would reduce the risk of miscommunication and demonstrated the landlord’s duty of care by providing a more personal and supportive method of engagement.
21. Overall, whilst the landlord’s complaint responses were appropriate in their tone and intention, there were failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint, and it failed to follow all aspects of its procedure. However, the landlord acknowledged its failings and offered compensation in line with what this Service would have awarded in the circumstances. Because the landlord made an offer of redress prior to our investigation, this, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolved its handling of the resident’s complaint. This finding of reasonable redress is conditional upon the landlord paying the resident the £170 compensation previously offered in its stage 2 complaint response.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord should keep clear, detailed records of every repair, inspection, and survey, including dates, what was done and when it was completed. If it refers to reports or surveys, it should be able to evidence its actions. Maintaining an accessible audit trail ensures it can show what work has been completed and plan future actions effectively.

Communication

23. We acknowledge it can be challenging to manage complex communication with residents, particularly where distress or vulnerabilities influence the nature of contact. Establishing structured communication plans can be an effective way to promote constructive engagement. This approach is recognised as best practice for managing frequent or involved correspondence. It would have been appropriate in the circumstances for the landlord to agree a communication plan with the resident. This would have improved clarity and managed the resident’s expectations.