Peabody Trust (202451579)

Background

1. The resident reported mould in her bathroom in January 2024. She continued to report that the problem had returned and the landlord attended each time to treat it. On 10 February 2025, the resident was granted a management transfer based on a recommendation from the police. The landlord has noted that the resident and her daughter suffer from asthma.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of mould in the bathroom.
   2. Request for a management transfer.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould in the bathroom.
5. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer.
6. We found there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

7. Whilst the landlord recognised its failures in responding to the resident’s reports of mould, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
8. The landlord responded to the resident’s management transfer request in line with its policy.
9. The landlord acknowledged delays in responding to the resident’s complaint, and its offer of compensation was proportionate to the impact on her.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

10. The landlord has a damp and mould policy however, this does not include timescales to complete repairs. Its repairs policy says that it will:
    1. Attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and make the situation safe within 24 hours.
    2. Complete routine repairs to rectify faults within 28 calendar days.
    3. Complete major repairs within 60 calendar days.
11. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord did not investigate damp and mould repairs prior to January 2024. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it may not consider a complaint where the issue happened or was first found over 12 months ago.
12. In its stage 1 response, the landlord advised that as per its policy, it is only obliged to review matters over the previous 12 months. However, it chose to extend its timeline back to January 2024. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. We have found that the landlord’s decision to limit its investigation back to January 2024 was appropriate and in line with its policy. It also gave clear advice to the resident to explain why it has done this.
13. In our investigation, we found that the landlord did not provide us with satisfactory evidence of repair visits and it did not evidence records of what took place when it attended the property. The resident has not disputed the content of the landlord’s stage 2 response and the outstanding matter is the level of compensation the landlord offered. Therefore, we have not made a finding on the landlord’s record keeping, but we have noted this in our learning section of our report.
14. In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed that it had attended to treat the mould on several occasions. However, it acknowledged that it had failed to ascertain the cause of the mould that the resident reported 4 times within 2 years. It is positive that it identified this in its investigation, and it appropriately raised a survey to identify and rectify the underlying cause of the mould growth. It apologised to the resident and offered £200 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience and distress this likely caused her.
15. We cannot say if a landlord’s action or inaction has directly had a detrimental impact on health. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court where medical experts can look at independent evidence. We can look at whether or not the landlord considered any vulnerabilities and the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings.
16. The landlord’s offer of compensation aligns with its compensation policy for disruption that arises from a short‑to‑medium‑duration service failure with a short‑term impact. We do not consider this offer proportionate given the vulnerabilities of the household. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s physical health condition) may justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
17. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £200 for the inconvenience and distress caused by its delays in identifying the cause of the mould. This sum reflects the fact that, due to the vulnerabilities of the household, the landlord’s delays would have had a more severe effect on them compared to other residents in the same position without their vulnerabilities.

18. The landlord’s rehousing policy says that it considers management transfer request through its priority move panels. These are overseen by the regional allocations and lettings teams. It defines a priority move as a management transfer where a resident is experiencing domestic abuse, or as a social welfare transfer where a resident has medical needs. It considers temporary moves to alternative accommodation if the property is deemed to be unsuitable for the resident to remain there. This is based on the recommendation and assessment of a building surveyor, the repairs team or the neighbourhoods team.
19. The policy says a management transfer allows a tenant priority to enable an urgent move to a property of a similar size to their current accommodation. The landlord may withdraw a management transfer priority if an applicant refuses one reasonable offer of a suitable home. An additional offer may be made in exceptional circumstances.
20. Having reviewed the landlord’s evidence, we are satisfied that the landlord acted quickly and appropriately after it received a recommendation for the resident to be moved on safety grounds on 30 January 2025. The landlord approved a priority move on 10 February 2025 and confirmed this in writing to the resident on 11 February 2025 which was appropriate. In its communication, the landlord gave the following details to the resident:
    1. How to bid on properties.
    2. She was entitled to 2 bedrooms as per her current priority.
    3. The priority is eligible for one offer only.
21. In her communication with the landlord, the resident requested a 3-bed property to move to. The landlord appropriately advised her that she did not have evidence to support this. It requested that she provide confirmation of household members and any evidence to support her need for a bigger property.
22. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that it had offered 2 properties to the resident. It said the resident had declined these because she found them unsuitable for her and her daughter’s needs. The landlord explained that it was actively working to find a property that met her current needs based on the evidence it had, and it had not received any evidence demonstrating a need for a 3-bed property.
23. In summary, we are satisfied that the landlord followed its procedures correctly. In its final response, it confirmed to the resident that it continued to support her in finding a suitable property. Therefore, we have made a finding of no maladministration by the landlord.
24. The landlord and resident have confirmed that in December 2025, she accepted an alternative property which is currently undergoing repairs before the landlord is able to let the property. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the delays. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint. This means that it is important the landlord has had an opportunity to respond before we investigate. Therefore, it is fair and reasonable that we will not assess this and encourage the resident to raise a further complaint with her landlord.

25. The landlord’s complaint policy says when a complaint is raised, it will:
    1. Log and acknowledge it within 5 working days of receipt and respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of acknowledgment.
    2. Acknowledge a request for a stage 2 review within 5 working days of the escalation being received and respond within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
    3. Provide an explanation to the resident if more time is required and provide a clear timeframe for when the response will be received.
26. The resident submitted her complaint on 16 June 2025 and the landlord logged it within 2 working days. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 23 June 2025. The landlord acted appropriately in logging and acknowledging the resident’s complaint in line with its policy.
27. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 20 July 2025. This was 22 working days after it raised the complaint which was not appropriate as the response was outside of its timescales in its policy. There is no evidence that it communicated the delay with the resident and the resident contacted the landlord on 8 July 2025 to chase the response. The landlord acknowledged this failure to follow its policy in its stage 1 response. It apologised to the resident and offered her £50 compensation for the inconvenience of the delay.
28. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response on 21 July 2025. She requested that the landlord reconsider its offer of compensation because of the impact the issues had on her and her daughter. The landlord responded on 4 August 2025 explaining they are unable to increase the compensation. It appropriately advised that if she remained unhappy with the response, she could escalate her complaint to stage 2.
29. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 August 2025. The landlord acknowledged her request on 29 August 2025 which was 19 working days after the escalation. The landlord recognised this delay in its stage 2 response and acted appropriately by apologising for this failure. It offered the resident £25 compensation for the further delay in addition to the £50 the landlord offered at stage 1.
30. The landlord’s offering of £75 compensation for the complaint handling places it in line with a failure with a low-level impact according to its compensation policy. This aligns with our guidance remedy for a failure that did not affect the overall outcome for the resident. Therefore, we have made a finding of reasonable redress by the landlord.

Learning

31. The landlord should ensure it logs and processes complaints in line with its policy to avoid delays in responding to complaints.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord did not provide us with details of the visits it made to address the mould issue in the bathroom. It should ensure that comprehensive notes are captured and recorded on its repair system so the landlord can evidence what happened.

Communication

33. The landlord failed to communicate delays in responding to the resident’s complaint. However, its communication in the substantive issues was reasonable.