Peabody Trust (202523700)

Decision
Case ID	202523700
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	31 March 2026

 

Background

1. The resident lives with her husband and baby. She has additional needs arising from the pregnancy. She complained about Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) from a resident living above her. She also complained about the landlord’s management of repairs related to leaks from the flat above. She complained to us because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s management of:

1. The resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Repairs related to leaks from the flat above.
3. The resident’s complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s management of the resident’s reports of ASB.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s management of repairs related to leaks from the flat above.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint.

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

 

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord did not follow ASB procedures. It gave late updates and delayed a risk assessment. It did not progress recommended actions. It did not follow its case closure process.
7. The landlord failed to act in line with its repairs policy by not responding promptly to leaks, delaying forced emergency access, and not completing or following up remedial works. The resident experienced repeated damage and potentially unsafe conditions over a prolonged period.
8. The landlord failed to follow its complaints policy, did not meet required timeframes, and did not address several issues the resident raised, causing avoidable time and trouble.

 

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 28 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £800, made up as follows: £500 to recognise the significant impact the ASB and repeated leaks had on the resident’s daily life, including the distress, disruption and strain these issues caused £150 for the avoidable time, trouble, distress and inconvenience the resident experienced in repeatedly pursuing updates and support £150 to reflect the additional distress and inconvenience caused by delays and omissions in the landlord’s complaint handling The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 28 April 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve. The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: inspects the ceiling cracks and any residual water damage to the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) the 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 provide a copy of the survey report and scope of works to the resident and this Service.	No later than 28 April 2026
4	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the remedial works are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or the steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident	No later than 12 May 2026
5	Management Transfer Request   The landlord must provide the resident with a clear, written response to her request for a management transfer. This response must: confirm whether the resident is eligible under its allocations or management‑transfer policy set out the evidence considered, including any safeguarding, vulnerability, or risk factors explain the decision and give clear reasons outline any alternative housing options or support if a management transfer is not approved.   If the landlord requires further information to complete the assessment, it must contact the resident promptly to request it.	No later than 28 April 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 January 2025	The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint. She complained: the landlord had not notified her that it had closed its ASB case against the upstairs neighbour ASB from the neighbour was continuing the neighbour had deliberately caused a flood into her flat the night before, damaging decor and kitchen items she had a new-born child and was staying with her mother until the leak was repaired She asked the landlord to: agree a management transfer for her family alternatively, take action against the neighbour attend the neighbour’s property to unblock the sink and washing machine pipes that had caused the leak arrange for a senior member of the landlord’s staff to investigate the ASB issues and her complaint
6 February 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It said it needed time to investigate and would provide a comprehensive response within 20 working days. The resident could expect a response by 7 March 2025.
6 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: it had previously agreed an Action Plan in respect of the ASB, and the neighbour had signed an ASB Agreement (ABA) it had sent the resident a closure letter on 9 October 2024 because Care and Support services were managing the ASB it would liaise with the Care and Support Services operative and investigate the ongoing noise concerns it was looking into the possibility of installing noise monitoring equipment it was ensuring it completed repairs to the neighbour’s flat to prevent further leaks occurring it had followed up with its repairs team to find out why repairs had not been carried out to the resident’s flat and would monitor until the repairs were fully resolved it would ensure the neighbour signed and kept to the ABA it would follow up outstanding repairs to the resident’s property it would inform the resident of housing options It partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It offered compensation of £160.
11 June 2025	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said: she had received no correspondence, updates, or other communication from the landlord about the ASB case, actions taken or timeline for a resolution She asked the landlord for: a resolution to the ASB clear and transparent lines of communication compensation for her trouble to date
29 July 2025	The landlord emailed the resident and confirmed that it had escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 11 July 2025.
6 October 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It partially upheld her complaint. It said: it apologised for inconvenience and upset and understood that its communication and support did not meet her expectations it had taken appropriate actions and had closed the ASB case. A Specialist Housing Officer and the Neighbourhood Manager were monitoring and managing ASB concerns. it had addressed more recent reports of leaks and had completed a repair it apologised for the impact of ongoing issues with leaks in response to the resident’s additional issues raised after the stage 2 escalation request, it accepted it could have handled discussions about rehousing and an interaction with the Neighbourhood Manager more sensitively it apologised for the delay in its handling of her complaint it offered £460 compensation for inconvenience and impact
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted us. She told us that she disagreed with the landlord’s stage 2 response and that it had provided inaccurate information. She asked for: a formal case review an apology an inspection of the damaged ceilings in her flat and repairs of cracks caused by the flooding increased compensation

 

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 management of the resident’s reports of ASB.
Finding	Maladministration

9. The landlord’s ASB policy says it must assess risk and vulnerability when it first receives an ASB report. It must also agree an action plan, give regular updates, and explain the case closure clearly. Its procedure adds further steps. It says the landlord must triage reports quickly, carry out a risk assessment, make first contact within 2 working days, and review cases every four to six weeks. The procedure also says the landlord must investigate new incidents, gather evidence, and keep accurate records.
10. The resident first reported ASB on 15 September 2022. She continued to report threats and other incidents through to January 2024. Usually, we do not investigate events more than 12 months old, as evidence becomes harder to check. For this reason, our assessment covers events from January 2024 onwards. We have included earlier events only for background.
11. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 and 19 January 2024 about drug use, nuisance from visitors to the upstairs flat, and urination in communal areas.
12. She made a complaint to the landlord in February 2024 and contacted her MP in March about the ongoing ASB. In its response to the MP in April, the landlord said it would keep checking the situation and increase visits to the block. It also said the resident should report incidents to the police. We have not seen evidence that the landlord created a clear action plan or carried out the actions it described.
13. The landlord’s records show it made an internal request for a risk assessment on 28 May 2024. We have not seen evidence that it carried out an earlier risk assessment after the resident’s email of 7 January 2024. This did not meet policy requirements. The landlord has also not shown that it responded to the resident’s reports within 2 working days, as the procedure requires.
14. The evidence shows the resident emailed the landlord 3 times between February and May 2024. She reported floods, threats, drug use, defecation and urination in communal areas, and noise nuisance. She also contacted her MP. Landlord records from 28 May 2024 state it could not find any ASB cases on its system. Despite and given the associated reports noted above, on balance it is viewed that the landlord did not log the resident’s reports as an ASB case.
15. The landlord replied to a councillor enquiry on 18 June 2024. It said it had agreed an action plan with the resident and would stay in regular contact. The evidence shows it did not contact the resident again until 5 August 2024. This was despite 5 messages from the resident between 18 June and 5 August reporting new incidents, threats, and concerns for her safety.
16. During this period, the resident was pregnant. She reported threats, intimidation, stress, and health concerns. We have not seen evidence that the landlord carried out any safeguarding checks or welfare visits. The landlord also did not work with other agencies, even though the resident, her MP and her councillor had asked it to do so.
17. The landlord’s stage 1 response said that it had met with the neighbour twice in August 2024 and that it had agreed an ABA. It did not give details of what was agreed or when. However, there were no further reports of incidents between August 2024 and January 2025, when the resident sent her stage 1 complaint.
18. The landlord said it sent the resident an ASB case closure letter on 9 October, but it did not provide a copy of this letter to us. The resident said she did not receive it. The landlord accepted that it had not given the resident regular updates and had not called her when it closed the case.
19. The landlord’s stage 2 response said it took the right steps to manage the ASB. It said it opened a case, created an action plan, met the neighbour twice in August 2024 and agreed an ABA. It did not explain how it monitored the situation or assessed risk. It focused on the absence of recent reports but did not show that it had addressed the underlying issues or the resident’s concerns.
20. The ASB had a serious impact on the resident. She faced repeated threats, intimidation, noise, and drug‑related activity. This made her feel unsafe in her home. She told us this affected her mental health and put strain on her family life. She contacted the landlord many times and often had to chase for a reply. She also contacted her MP and local councillor for help. The incidents caused her distress, and the effort needed to pursue resolution and support caused considerable time and trouble.
21. Overall, the landlord did not follow its ASB procedure. The resident had to report incidents repeatedly and chase updates. We have not seen evidence that the landlord followed up its suggestion to install noise‑monitoring equipment. It delayed its risk assessment. It did not follow the case‑closure process, which requires discussion with the resident and written confirmation. By not responding to the ASB reports early enough, the landlord missed the chance to limit further incidents and stop the case from escalating. For these reasons, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.

Complaint	The landlord’s management of repairs related to leaks from the flat above.
Finding	Maladministration

22. The landlord’s repairs policy says it must keep homes safe and give priority to vulnerable residents. It must respond to repair reports through clear and accessible channels. It must meet set timescales for routine, major and emergency repairs. This includes attending emergency repairs within 4–24 hours and completing routine repairs within 28 days.
23. The resident reported at least 3 leaks from the flat above between September 2022 and November 2023. On 4 January 2024, the landlord said it had tried to contact the neighbour to gain access but could not arrange an appointment. The resident then reported sewage‑contaminated water coming through her ceiling and bathroom light. This left her without lighting. The landlord made unsuccessful efforts to gain access to the property above from November 2023. However, the landlord did not force entry to the upstairs flat until 9 February 2024. Its policy allows forced entry when there is a risk and access attempts have failed. The delay meant the resident remained in potentially unsafe conditions for several weeks.
24. Another leak around 26 February 2024 affected the resident’s hallway and kitchen. She had no lighting in her hallway, bathroom or kitchen until repairs were completed on 4 March 2024. She also asked the landlord to repair the resulting damage to her ceilings.
25. Repairs to the ceilings were still outstanding when the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 May 2025. The landlord said it would follow up and make sure repairs were completed, but we have not seen evidence that this happened.
26. A further leak occurred on 27 May 2024. A third leak on 29 January 2025 caused more kitchen damage, including to her microwave and equipment for her new-born baby. The landlord helped her replace some of these items, including a microwave and steriliser.
27. The resident reported a fourth leak on 31 August 2025. She told us that, by March 2026, cracks were still visible across her ceilings. She also said the landlord had not inspected her home or completed remedial works.
28. The repeated leaks had a significant impact on the resident. Her ceilings were damaged, she lost lighting, and parts of her home were unsafe to use. She said she faced physical strain from cleaning up water and waste while pregnant and later while caring for a young baby. She reported stress, anxiety and feeling unsafe, which affected her mental health. The leaks also damaged her belongings and appliances, causing financial pressure as she paid to replace items. She told us she arranged to stay in hotels on several occasions, though we have not seen evidence to show whether her home was uninhabitable or whether the landlord assessed the need for alternative accommodation. The leaks and delays in repairs caused ongoing distress, inconvenience, and disruption.
29. Overall, the landlord did not meet its repair duties. It delayed responding to repeated leaks and did not act quickly in emergencies. It did not ensure repairs in the flat above were completed to prevent further leaks. Although it helped replace some damaged items, it did not inspect the resident’s property or resolve the ongoing ceiling damage. These failures meant the resident experienced prolonged periods of disruption and, at times, said she could not stay in her home. For these reasons, the landlord’s handling of the repairs amounted to maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

30. The landlord’s Complaints Policy says it must log complaints within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days. It must escalate a complaint when a resident asks. It must issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
31. The resident first complained on 25 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint but did not respond. Between 28 May and 30 July 2024, the resident complained 5 more times. The complaint she made on 30 January 2025 was the first the landlord formally processed under its complaints procedure. The landlord acknowledged this complaint and asked for more time on 25 February 2025. It did not issue its stage 1 response until 6 May 2025, which was 48 working days later.
32. The resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 11 June 2025 and again on 30 June 2025. She contacted the landlord 5 more times asking for confirmation and an update. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 October 2025, which was 83 working days after her first escalation request.
33. These delays show that the landlord did not meet its policy timeframes. The resident had to spend avoidable time and trouble chasing updates. The landlord did not provide timely or accessible communication as required.
34. The landlord’s complaint responses did not address key issues the resident raised. These included her concerns about safety, repeated disruption and property damage, and her request for a management transfer. The responses also did not deal with her reports of threats, strangers trying to enter her home, or the long‑standing ceiling damage she described. The landlord did not give a substantive reply to her request for a management transfer. This fell short of the policy requirement for clear and thorough complaint investigations.
35. The landlord took some steps in line with its policy, but these steps were limited. They did not address the key issues or reduce the impact of the delays. The remedies it offered were not proportionate to what the resident experienced. We have not seen evidence that the agreed actions were monitored or completed. For example, the stage 1 response said the landlord would follow up repairs, but we have not seen evidence that it inspected the home or arranged remedial works, despite repeated reports of ceiling damage.
36. The delays and omissions in the landlord’s complaint handling caused the resident further time and trouble. She had to make repeated follow‑up contacts and escalation requests before receiving responses. She told the landlord that the lack of progress and communication left her exhausted and overwhelmed. The absence of updates meant she had prolonged periods without knowing the status of her complaint or what action the landlord was taking. These delays also meant that the underlying issues she complained about (ASB, leaks and damage) went unresolved for longer, adding to the disruption.
37. For these reasons, the landlord’s overall complaint handling fell below its policy requirements and amounted to maladministration.

 

Learning

38. It is important for the landlord to adhere to both its Complaint Policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Failing to do so resulted in a delayed response and impacted the resident in this case.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. Providing written and verbal confirmation when closing ASB cases, in line with policy, helps ensure that residents have a clear and formal record of the case status.

Communication

40. Clear and prompt communication with residents about complaint progress and expected timescales helps prevent unnecessary inconvenience and reduces frustration caused by delays or missing updates.