Peabody Trust (202426508)

Decision
Case ID	202426508
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	04 March 2026

Background

1. During 2024, the resident reported issues with the kitchen and bathroom structural pipes and the condition of the windows. She also raised concerns about communal cleaning and parcel deliveries. On 23 January 2024 she submitted a liability insurance claim for damage she said was caused by an earlier leak.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:

Reports of window repairs.
Reports of kitchen and bathroom sink repairs.
Concerns about communal cleaning.
Concerns about communal mailboxes.
Reports of delay in her liability insurance claim.
Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:

Reasonable redress in its response to reports of windows repairs.
Reasonable redress in its response to reports of kitchen and bathroom sink repairs.
Service failure in its response to concerns about communal cleaning.
No maladministration in its response to concerns about communal mailboxes.
Service failure in its response to reports of delay in the handling of the liability insurance claim.
Maladministration in its response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of window repairs

4. There were delays and record-keeping failures in the landlord’s handling of the window repairs. In its complaint response it acknowledged these shortcomings, confirmed additional oversight and offered compensation within its overall repair award. The amount it offered is proportionate to the delay and inconvenience evidenced by the resident. We therefore find reasonable redress.

Reports of kitchen and bathroom sink repairs

5. There were delays by the landlord in identifying the underlying cause of the drainage issue. Once it identified the defect, it carried out substantive works within a reasonable period. The landlord acknowledged the delay and included compensation within its overall repairs award. The amount offered is proportionate to the inconvenience evidenced by the resident. We therefore find reasonable redress.

Concerns about communal cleaning

6. The landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it monitored and delayed communal cleaning services between July and December 2024. It did not supply inspection records or attendance evidence when responding to the complaint. These evidential gaps amount to service failure.

Concerns about communal mailboxes

7. The landlord contacted the relevant postal service after the resident raised concerns and requested investigation of delivery practices. The landlord kept the resident updated during the complaint process. These actions were reasonable steps in response to the issue. We therefore find no maladministration.

Reports of delay in handling the liability insurance claim

8. The evidence does not show that the landlord provided updates or monitored progress between January to July 2024. Although it later progressed the claim and issued payment, the absence of communication during the early stages fell short of reasonable expectations.

Complaint Handling

9. The landlord did not log or progress the complaint in accordance with its published timescales. It did not demonstrate that it acknowledged or addressed the escalation request before our involvement.

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 01 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £300 in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience. The amount comprises: £100 for its service failure in response to the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning. £100 for its service failure in response to the resident’s reports of delay in liability insurance claim. £100 for its maladministration response to the resident’s complaint.	No later than 01 April 2026
3	Investigation order The landlord must carry out a review of communal cleaning services provided to the resident’s block between 1 July 2024 and 31 December 2024. If the landlord’s review of communal cleaning between the stated period identified that cleaning did not take place as required, the landlord should consider an appropriate refund of the relevant proportion of the service charge to the resident.	No later than 01 April 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident £485, as offered in its final complaint response, if it had not done so already.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
5 August 2024	The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord raising concerns about window repair, kitchen drainage issues, communal services and the handling of her insurance claim.
8 September 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
7 February 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged delays regarding widow and pipe repairs and offered £485 compensation.
20 February 2025	The landlord issues its stage 2 complaint response. It acknowledged delays in relation to the repair issues, maintained its position on communal services and the insurance claim, and confirmed the £485 compensation offer.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us as she was still dissatisfied with the compensation offered and with the landlord’s position regarding communal services and the insurance claim.

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	Reports of window repairs.
Finding	Reasonable redress

10. This issue concerns the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that her kitchen, bathroom and bedroom windows were stiff to open, had loose hinges and that secondary glazing was not functioning properly.

11. The investigation covers the period from 26 April 2024, when the resident first reported these issues to the date of the final complaint response on 20 February 2025.The resident raised further concerns after March 2025. The evidence indicates the landlord progressed these matters separately in 2025 as part of a new complaint. As they were not addressed within the landlord’s final response under review in this case, and were considered separately, they fall outside the scope of this investigation.

12. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the building, including windows and frames. It also states that repairs must be completed effectively and that contractor performance must be monitored. These obligations applied to the reports made by the resident.

13. The resident first reported problems with the kitchen and bathroom windows on 26 April 2024. She said the hinges were loose and that the windows were stiff to open. The landlord raised a repair order the same day, which was appropriate.

14. A contractor attended on 7 May 2024. The landlord recorded the job as completed. However, the evidence shows the visit involved an inspection only and that no repairs took place. Recording the repairs as complete when works had not been carried out represents a record-keeping failure and contributed to delay in progressing the matter.

15. Another contractor attended on 21 October 2024. A record dated 29 October 2024 states that glazing and framework were completed. However, the repair logs do not contain clear detail of what works were undertaken. This lack of detail demonstrates inadequate record keeping and limited transparency about whether the repairs were resolved at that stage.

16. The landlord raised another repair on 4 December 2024 for stiff metal windows and damaged secondary glazing. This job was not booked and was cancelled after 58 days with no work completed. There is no evidence or explanation or follow-up action. This was an unreasonable delay and indicates insufficient contractor oversight.

17. A technical inspection took place on 14 January 2025. The surveyor identified defects including a bedroom window that did not open and a broken bathroom mechanism. Further works were raised. Although appointments were arranged and a contractor attended in March 2025, the resident reported that the windows remained stiff and difficult to operate. The evidence therefore shows the repairs were not fully resolved within the period under review.

18. The evidence shows the landlord took several actions in response to the resident’s reports between April 2024 and March 2025. It raised repair orders, arranged inspections and sent contractors to the property. The evidence also shows administrative issues that affected progress. These included inaccurate completion records, a cancelled repair order and long gaps without effective follow‑on work. These matters did not align with the landlord’s repairs policy, which requires it to complete repairs effectively and monitor contractor performance.

19. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged delays and confirmed that its repairs monitoring team would oversee completion. It offered compensation totalling £485. Of this, £225 related specifically to delays in completing window repairs. It also offered £100 related to distress and inconvenience while waiting for works. We have allocated £50 of this sum to the window repairs (and £50 to the delays to the pipe repairs).

20. Our remedies guidance allows for a finding of reasonable redress where a landlord acknowledges service shortcomings, takes steps to resolve the issue, and offers proportionate compensation. In this case, the landlord accepted delay, progressed further inspections and works, and offered compensation of £275 that falls within the range we would ordinarily award for prolonged repair delays and time and trouble.

21. Taking all factors into account, including the compensation attributable to this issue and the landlord’s actions to progress the works, we are satisfied that the landlord has provided reasonable redress.

Complaint	Reports of kitchen and bathroom repairs.
Finding	Reasonable redress

22. This issue concerns the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repeated blockages, slow drainage and backflow affecting the kitchen and bathroom sinks. The investigation covers the period from 26 April 2024, when the relevant reports were made within the timeframe under review, to 5 September 2024, when the landlord completed structural pipework alterations. Any matters raised after that date form part of later correspondence and are not considered here.

23. The landlord’s repairs policy requires it to maintain plumbing and drainage installations and to ensure that repairs are completed effectively. It also requires appropriate contractor oversight. These obligations applied throughout the period under review.

24. On 26 April 2024 the resident reported that the kitchen and bathroom sinks were leaking, partially blocked and draining slowly. The landlord raised a repair order the same day. This was an appropriate initial response.

25. A contractor attended on 30 May 2024 and carried out a mechanical cleaning to remove scale and deposits. When the resident reported further backflow on 17 June 2024, the contractor attended the same day. At that stage drainage appeared clear during testing. Although further inspection was noted as potentially required, it was reasonable at that stage for the landlord to attempt to resolve the issue through standard clearance works, as there was no confirmed evidence of a structural defect.

26. The resident reported continued problems on 3 July 2024 and again on 19 July 2024, stating that previous visits had not resolved the issue. The recurrence of symptoms indicated that earlier interventions were not effective in resolving the underlying cause.

27. On 5 August 2024, a contractor identified the likely structural cause. The notes recorded approximately eight meters of 50mm waste pipe with no ventilation, causing wastewater to backup. The contractor recommended replacement pipework and installation of an air admittance valve. Once the structural defect was identified, the landlord progressed substantive remedial works.

28. On 4 and 5 September 2024 the landlord completed significant remedial works. The records show that it installed new soil and drainage pipework, an external waste pipe, an air admittance valve and rodding access points. It also installed new sink and washing machine pipework. The system was tested and recorded as free flowing.

29. The evidence shows that the landlord attended multiple times between April and August 2024. Earlier attendances addressed symptoms but did not resolve the underlying structural issue. While several attendances were required before the underlying cause was identified, there is no evidence the landlord knew earlier that the problem was structural or that previous works were temporary fixes. Once the structural issue was confirmed in August 2024, the landlord completed remedial works within approximately one month. In the circumstances, this was a reasonable timeframe.

30. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord accepted that there had been delays in resolving the sink and pipework issues. It offered £160 for time and trouble relating to repairs and we have allocated £50 to this issue from the £100 offered for distress and inconvenience.

31. Our remedies guidance provides that reasonable redress may be found where a landlord acknowledges failings, completes necessary works and offers proportionate compensation for inconvenience and delay. In this case, the landlord ultimately carried out structural pipework replacement, which resolved the underlying cause within the period under review, and offered compensation consistent with the level of inconvenience experienced by the resident.

32. Taking all factors into account, including the multiple visits before diagnosis, the eventual completion of major remedial works and the compensation attributable to repair delay, we are satisfied that the landlord has provided reasonable redress in relation to this issue.

Complaint	Concerns about communal cleaning.
Finding	Service failure

33. The resident raised concerns about communal cleaning and parcel deliveries in her complaint on 30 July 2024. She said the landlord had not cleaned the communal areas consistently between July and December 2024 while continuing to charge a service charge. She repeated these concerns when she escalated the complaint on 8 September 2024.

34. We will assess whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports and whether it demonstrated appropriate monitoring of the service. We will not decide whether cleaning took place during the period in question. We also do not determine any service charge amounts.

35. Internal records dated 7 August 2024 note cleaning issues and show contact with estate services. A further internal entry dated 2 December 2025 shows that staff discussed and escalated the issue. However, the landlord did not obtain cleaning logs, inspection records, or attendance sheets at that time to verify the service.

36. The records also show internal chasing of the area manager. Emails from early February 2025 asked for confirmation about the caretaker’s absence and any cover arrangements. An email on 4 February 2025 confirmed the caretaker had been off sick from 27 November 2024 to 10 January 2025. It also confirmed that two caretakers covered the block and that their attendance was not daily because they managed other estates. The landlord obtained this information several months after the resident first raised her concerns and after she escalated the complaint.

37. The landlord’s February 2025 response addressed only the period from late November 2024 onwards. However, the resident’s concerns covered July to December 2024. The landlord did not provide evidence for this period. It also did not provide cleaning schedules, inspection records, or monitoring evidence that showed consistent delivery of the service.

38. The landlord’s estate management policy states that it maintains neighbourhoods through programmes such as estate inspections. These inspections involve visual checks of communal areas to assess condition and identify where standards can improve. Its block inspection policy also explains that block inspections help the landlord monitor, review and improve how it manages communal areas. These policies show the landlord should carry out inspections and hold monitoring records. The landlord did not provide evidence of inspections or monitoring during July to December 2024. Because of this, we cannot confirm whether it monitored the service during that time.

39. The landlord was responsible for evidencing that the service charged was delivered. In the absence of such evidence, it is not possible to conclude that the service was delivered as charged. The evidential gaps arise from the landlord’s failure to properly investigate and evidence the issue at the time it was raised.

40. We therefore find service failure in the landlord’s handling of communal cleaning concerns. We order the landlord to pay the resident £100 to recognise the time and trouble she has spent seeking clarification. We also order the landlord to investigate whether cleaning took place between July and December 2024. The landlord must share its findings with the resident within 4 weeks.

Complaint	Concerns about communal mailboxes
Finding	No maladministration

41. The resident raised concerns about communal mailboxes on 30 July 2024. She said the red mailboxes installed in 2012 were not being used, that residents had not been given keys, and that deliveries were not being made to the boxes.

42. The landlord contacted the resident on 7 August 2024 after receiving the complaint. An internal record shows it noted concerns about delivery practices rather than defects with the communal mailboxes themselves.

43. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord advised the resident to raise concerns directly with the postal service. The evidence shows the area manager met with the resident in December 2024 to discuss the issue and had contacted the postal service to request investigation. The landlord also submitted an estate improvement request to explore installation of secure postal boxes or a designated parcel drop area.

44. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that a case had been raised with the neighbourhood manager to address how the issue could be rectified and that the resident would receive an update directly.

45. The evidence shows the landlord took reasonable steps once it identified that the issue related to delivery practices rather than a fault with the mailboxes. It escalated the matter to the correct organisation and updated the resident during the complaint process. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about communal mailboxes.

Complaint	Reports of delay in her liability insurance claim
Finding	Service failure

46. On 30 July 2024 the resident reported delays in the landlord’s handling of her public liability insurance claim. We will consider whether the landlord responded reasonably to her request to make a claim and whether it managed the claim appropriately once notified. We will not assess the landlord’s legal liability for the damage or the adequacy of any settlement because these matters fall outside our remit.

47. The resident notified the landlord’s insurance team of damage to her belongings on 23 January 2024. The evidence shows the landlord received the claim at that time. The landlord did not show that it gave the resident clear information about the claims process, expected timescales, or regular updates after that notification.

48. The resident raised concerns about delay on 30 July 2024. This indicates that around six months passed without resolution or meaningful update. The landlord has not shown that it monitored, progressed, or updated the claim during that period. As the insurance team is part of the landlord’s service, the landlord remains responsible for its actions and communication.

49. After the resident raised the delay, the landlord acknowledged her concerns within the complaint process. In August and September 2024, it requested further information and forwarded documents to its insurance team. By December 2024, it confirmed the claim was active with the insurer. In February 2025, it sought a further update from the team.

50. The landlord’s published insurance guidance states that claims should be notified and handled promptly so they can be progressed efficiently. It also confirms that the insurance team works with other teams to support timely handling. The landlord did not provide evidence that it met these expectations between January and July 2024.

51. The absence of evidence showing monitoring or communication during that period shows the landlord did not manage the claim appropriately at the outset. Even where insurers undertake liability assessments, landlords must confirm receipt, explain the process, and provide reasonable updates. A six‑month period without evidence of communication or progression falls short of that expectation.

52. The insurer later assessed the claim and issued payment. However, the earlier lack of updates likely caused avoidable time and trouble for the resident when she had to chase for progress. We therefore find service failure in the landlord’s handling of her reports of delay.

53. Our remedy guidance suggests awards between £50 and £100 where there is a minor failure in service and the landlord did not fully acknowledge or resolve it. We order the landlord to pay the resident £100. This recognises the time and trouble she experienced due to the lack of communication and delay between January and July 2024.

Complaint	Response to the resident’s complaint
Finding	Maladministration

54. On 31 July 2024, the resident emailed the landlord and raised concerns about repairs, cleaning, parcel security and her insurance claim. The landlord’s complaint policy states that any expression of dissatisfaction that requires a response must be logged as a complaint. The evidence does not show the landlord logged this contact as a stage 1 complaint at that time.

55. The landlord emailed the resident on 14 August 2024. The resident replied to the same day and confirmed that she wished to proceed with a formal stage 1 complaint. This confirmation meant the landlord should have registered the complaint and issued a stage 1 response within its published timescales.

56. The resident continued corresponding with the landlord during August and September 2024. On 8 September 2024, she explicitly requested stage 2 escalation. The evidence does not show that the landlord acknowledged this request or explained why it could not escalate the complaint. The landlord did not issue a stage 1 response until 7 February 2025. This is around six months after the initial complaint and around five months after the escalation request.

57. The delay between the resident confirming her formal complaint on 14 August 2024 and the stage 1 response on 7 February 2025 is significant. There is no evidence that the landlord issued holding responses, agreed extensions, or communicated expected response dates. The stage 2 response, issued on 20 February 2025, was also provided after the resident escalated her concerns to this service.

58. The evidence also shows the landlord did not assess the full period of the resident’s communal cleaning concerns. The resident raised issues covering July to December 2024. The landlord’s stage 1 response considered only late November onward. This indicates that the landlord did not scope the complaint correctly or address all issues the resident raised.

59. We considered what the landlord did to put things right. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay as a separate failing or take steps to remedy the issue. The resident had to pursue the matter repeatedly.

60. Our remedies guidance states that maladministration applies where there are serious complaint‑handling failures, including failure to follow policy and excessive delay. The landlord did not progress the complaint within its timescales, and it did not respond to the stage 2 escalation request.

61. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We order the landlord to pay the resident £100 to recognise the time and trouble caused by the delay in logging and progressing her complaint. Our awards of compensation for complaint handling errors are lower than those for other failures in service.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

62. This case highlights the importance of:

Maintaining accurate repair records and ensuring completion notes reflect the work carried out.
Monitoring contractor performance and following up cancelled or incomplete orders.
Retaining inspections and attendance records for communal services so concerns can be evidenced promptly.
Providing clear updates where insurance claims are referred internally.
Logging complaints at the earliest opportunity and responding within published timescales.

63. Improved oversight and record-keeping would reduce the risk of similar findings in future cases.