Peabody Trust (202507436)
Back to Top
|
Case ID |
202507436 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Peabody Trust |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
30 January 2026 |
- The resident asked the landlord to replace her bathroom suite given her ongoing reports of leaks and banging pipework.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about:
- The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a new bathroom.
- The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a new bathroom.
- There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord apologised and offered compensation for the delays in replacing the bathroom suite. It also took learning from the complaint. This included noting it was reviewing its processes for managing repair referrals and ensuring clear and timely updates were provided to residents.
- The landlord apologised and offered compensation for its poor complaints handling. It also took learning from the resident’s complaint.
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.
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord pays the £1180.45 compensation previously offered to the resident, if not already paid. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
26 November 2024 |
The resident made a complaint and said:
|
|
4 December 2024 |
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. |
|
17 December 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and said:
|
|
29 July 2025 |
The landlord told the resident it needed more time to investigate her complaint escalation request and agreed it would provide a response by 5 August 2025. |
|
4 August 2025 |
The landlord issued its final complaint response and said:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident told this Service that her bathroom suite was over 30 years old and had flooded 3 times. She said the landlord had undertaken repairs, but she continued to experience problems with leaking taps and banging pipework. She noted the landlord had agreed to fit a new bathroom suite but there were delays in doing this. The bathroom suite was replaced in December 2025. The resident said the situation affected her mental health. |
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 July responsible for maladministration.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a new bathroom. |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- In considering the landlord’s response to the issue of damp and mould, it is noted that the resident has referred to a possible impact upon her husband’s health. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a resident’s health, as this would be more appropriate for a court to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to take her concerns further.
- In the absence of a full and signed copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement, this Service has determined this aspect of the resident’s complaint in the context of section 11 of the Housing Act, 1985. This places a duty on landlords to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in a property. The landlord’s website confirms it is responsible for leaking taps and pipework.
- The housing records confirm the resident raised concerns about her bathroom on 5 July 2024. She said the taps leaked and the pipework banged when the water was turned on. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had an obligation to meet its repairing responsibilities under the resident’s tenancy agreement.
- The landlord arranged an appointment for the basin taps to be replaced on 29 July 2024 and for the pipework to be checked on 2 September 2024. This was not consistent with the 28-calendar day target timescale set out in the landlord’s repairs policy for completing routine repairs.
- The landlord replaced the basin taps on 29 July 2024. It replaced the toilet inlet valve on 2 September 2024 and confirmed the bathroom was in a poor state of repair and needed to be replaced. Whilst the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances, there is no evidence it acted on the request to replace the bathroom suite.
- The resident’s bathroom flooded on 4 September 2024 and she had to ask the fire authority to isolate the water supply. The landlord arranged for its contractor to repair the leak and check the electrics on the following day. This was appropriate. It confirmed the toilet inlet valve was broken and caused the leak. It repaired the toilet and the stopcock, which it said was stiff and difficult to turn.
- The resident asked the landlord on the same day to inspect the bathroom. She said it was in a poor condition and had flooded 3 times. She also noted that the operatives who attended on 29 July 2024 and 2 September 2024 had both recommended the bathroom was upgraded. There is no evidence the landlord by provided the resident with a response. This demonstrated poor communication on the part of the landlord and led to the resident chasing it up on 13 September 2024.
- The landlord told the resident on the same day that it would resolve the problem as quickly as possible. No timescales were provided to the resident for doing this. It noted on 17 September 2024 that the bathroom needed to be inspected before any further work was carried out.
- The landlord carried out an inspection on 30 September 2024. It was confirmed that whilst there were no active leaks, the bathroom suite needed to be replaced. There is no evidence the resident was provided with an update following the inspection. This led to her chasing up the landlord on several occasions in October 2024 and November 2024.
- The landlord noted on 6 December 2024 that the bathroom needed to be inspected again. It said this was because the surveyor who carried out the inspection had left the organisation and there was no record of his request to replace the bathroom on its replacement programme.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 December 2024.
- When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
- In this case, the landlord confirmed there had been a delay in accessing the surveyor’s report and acting on its findings. It also noted the member of staff had since left the organisation. It said it needed to arrange a further inspection and would do so as soon as possible. It also said it would ensure any identified work would be overseen by its team and it would keep the resident updated. The landlord offered the resident an apology and £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience that had been caused by the delays. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
- The landlord carried out a further inspection of the bathroom on 13 January 2025 and said it would refer the matter over to its asset management team. No details of the inspection were shared with this Service. This demonstrated poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
- The resident chased up the landlord on several occasions in January 2025 but received no response. The landlord told the resident on 7 March 2025 that the bathroom suite was not due to be renewed and that it would raise a job to complete the outstanding repairs. This caused confusion and led to the resident telling the landlord on the same day that she had previously received a telephone call confirming the bathroom would be upgraded.
- The landlord confirmed on 25 March 2025 that no further repairs were required in the bathroom.
- The landlord noted in an internal communication on 25 July 2025 that it had been identified during the inspection carried out in September 2024 that the bathroom suite failed to meet the decent homes standard and it needed to be replaced. It was also noted the bathroom suite needed to be replaced during the inspection that was carried out in January 2025.
- The landlord confirmed on 4 August 2025 in its final complaint response that it would replace the resident’s bathroom suite and apologised for the delay in doing so. This was appropriate. It said it would contact the resident in the next 2 weeks and arrange for the work to be completed. The landlord offered the resident £1180.45 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. It also took learning from the complaint. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The resident made a complaint on 26 November 2024. The complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on 4 December 2024. This was 1 working day outside the target timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy for acknowledging complaints. It did not confirm when it would issue its response. This meant the resident was not clear when she would receive a reply.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 December 2024. This was consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. It offered the resident £50 compensation for its poor complaints handling. This was consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy.
- It is unclear from the housing records when the resident escalated her complaint. This demonstrated poor record-keeping on the part of the landlord. It contacted the resident on 29 July 2025 and said it needed more time to respond to her complaint. The resident agreed a 5-day extension and the landlord said it would respond by 5 August 2025.
- The landlord issued its final complaint response on 4 August 2025. It apologised for the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint. Whilst it increased its overall offer of compensation by a sizeable amount, it has not been possible to fully establish what proportion was attributed directly towards the adverse impacts of the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint. A breakdown would have helped the resident to understand how the figure was reached and enabled them to reach a conclusion as to whether they believed the offer made was fair. The landlord however confirmed it had reinforced its commitment to escalate complaints in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. This demonstrated it took learning from the resident’s complaint. When all circumstances of the landlords management of the resident’s complaint are considered, a finding of reasonable remedy has been made.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The housing records provided by the landlord were limited and made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord should ensure it keeps accurate and clear records so it is able to meet its obligations.
Communication
- The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times and it failed to respond to a number of her request for updates.