Peabody Trust (202441791)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202441791

Peabody Trust

18 September 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to the first floor windows, a bathroom window, and the back door in the property.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association.
Around April 2024, the landlord replaced the back door and 3 windows in the property. In May 2024, the resident informed the landlord that she was not happy with the quality of the work completed. She said that there were gaps in the windows and the back door, and these were causing draughts.
Between May and August 2024, the landlord attended the property and installed draught excluders to the windows and back door.
On 5 September 2024, the resident raised a formal complaint. She said that the landlord had not completed the outstanding repairs to the windows and back door. On 29 September 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and said that there were ongoing draughts in the property.
In September 2024, the resident reported that the bathroom window did not open properly. On 25 February 2025, the landlord completed a repair to open the bathroom window. It also said that the window needed replacing.
On 19 March 2025, following contact from the resident, we asked the landlord to provide a stage 1 complaint response within 5 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 March 2025. It said:
1. It upheld the complaint because of its unreasonable delays in addressing the window repair issues, its poor communication and its handling of the complaint.
2. It offered £1,025 in compensation to the resident, made up of:
  1. £200 for its failure to manage the repairs.
  2. £600 for the impact of the draughts on the resident.
  3. £175 for its delay in issuing the stage 1 response.
  4. £50 for its failure to log the resident’s complaint correctly.
3. It had learned from the complaint and would continue to review ways it could improve its communication and service.
4. It would confirm the next step once it had completed an inspection.
The resident escalated her complaint on 31 March 2025. She said:
1. The landlord had sent 4 different people from 4 different companies to her property over the past year, but it had failed to resolve the repairs.
2. Its offer of compensation was too low, and did not reflect the landlord’s poor communication and handling of the repairs.
3. She could not sit in her front room due to the draughts, and this was impacting her disability.
4. It had failed to replace the windows its surveyor said it needed to.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 14 May 2025 and asked it to provide its stage 2 response within 5 working days. The stage 2 response was issued on 21 May 2025. In its response, the landlord:
1. Said its surveyor inspected the property on 1 April 2025. It apologised for its delay in raising the work following this visit.
2. Confirmed it had raised a job with its contractor to renew the rear door and overhaul the windows on the first floor and in the bathroom.
3. Said its repairs team would monitor the repair and keep her updated until it had completed all the work.
4. Offered a further £50 in compensation for its delay raising works following its surveyor’s inspection. Across both complaint responses, it offered a total amount of £1,075.

Events after the landlord’s complaint process

On 10 June 2025, the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint. She said the repairs remained outstanding, and the landlord had not provided her with an update.
The landlord replaced the bathroom window on 14 July 2025.
The resident confirmed to this Service on 15 September 2025 that the landlord had completed the repair to the back door on the same date. She said that repairs to the first floor windows are still outstanding. She advised that she had raised a new complaint about the bathroom window because the landlord had not provided the correct tools she needed to open it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In her communication with the landlord, the resident has referenced how this situation impacted her health. It is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The courts are better suited to handle this as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs to the first floor windows, a bathroom window, and the back door in the property

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy defines window repairs as programmed work due to the complexity. It should complete the work within 60 calendar days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it may offer between £600 to £1,000 for service failures that have caused extensive disruption to a resident.
The landlord has not disputed that it did not manage the outstanding repairs to the windows and door according to its responsive repairs policy. In its stage 1 response, it upheld the complaint and apologised for its poor communication and the unreasonable delays. It offered £800 in compensation made up of £200 for its failure to effectively manage the repairs, and £600 for the impact on the resident. It also said it would confirm the next steps once it had inspected. While it could have done more to confirm the next steps, it took responsibility for the delays and poor communication and offered compensation in line with its policy.
In its stage 2 response on 21 May 2025, the landlord again acknowledged that it failed to manage the repairs effectively. It said that a surveyor inspected on 1 April 2025, and it apologised for its delay in raising the related works. It confirmed that it had raised a job with its contractors to renew the rear door and overhaul the windows in the bathroom and 3 windows on the first floor. It awarded a further £50 in compensation for its delay in raising the works.
Overall, the landlord has not disputed that there were significant delays in progressing the repairs up to May 2025. This extended over a year, and the landlord acknowledged poor management of this process and a lack of communication with the resident.
When a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord’s redress appropriately addressed the issue and resolved the resident’s complaint. In doing so, we apply our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord offered the resident £850 across both complaint responses for its failings in managing the repairs. This was in line with its compensation policy for service failures that have caused extensive disruption to a resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer this upper limit considering the length of delays and impact on the resident. This amount is also in keeping with our remedies guidance for instances of maladministration causing significant impact to a resident.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord made a commitment to begin works to renew the rear door and overhaul 3 windows on the first floor and a bathroom window. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy confirms that window repairs should be completed within 60 working days. This created a reasonable expectation that it would complete all the work within 60 working days of the stage 2 response.
The landlord appropriately replaced the bathroom window on 14 July 2025, 37 working days after its stage 2 response. However, it did not progress the remaining repairs in line with its responsive repairs policy.
On 12 June 2025, the landlord received a quote from its contractors to replace the rear door frame. However, it did not complete this repair until 15 September 2025. This was 22 days outside its 60-day timescale. The records show that between July and early September 2025, the landlord noted that the resident had refused works. The resident denied this, and we do not have enough evidence to assess exactly what occurred during this period.
However, the landlord clarified this with the resident on 4 September 2025 and apologised for the miscommunication. While it is not clear if the miscommunication was the reason for the delay, the landlord could have done more to resolve this sooner. This is especially given the resident’s concerns about delays and poor communication, and the assurances the landlord provided in its complaint responses.
To date, nearly 4 months after the landlord issued its stage 2 response, there is no evidence that it has completed the repairs to the 3 first floor windows. An internal email dated 4 September 2025 suggests that the scope of the work has now changed from overhaul to replacement. However, there is no evidence it has scheduled this work. This falls outside of the timescales in the landlord’s responsive repairs policy. As a result, the landlord has failed to fully put things right and resolve the resident’s complaint.
The events since the stage 2 response indicate that the landlord has not fully put things right or learned from the outcomes of the earlier complaint. It has therefore not acted in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. It failed to complete all the repairs within the timescales set out in its responsive repairs policy. These delays are unsatisfactory, especially given the resident’s earlier complaints, her stated health concerns and reports of a draughty property and the landlord’s later assurances. Given the circumstances, a finding of reasonable redress is not appropriate despite the landlord’s significant compensation award, and we have made a finding of maladministration.
The Ombudsman awards £200 compensation for the failings that resulted in distress, inconvenience and additional delays for the resident. This is in addition to the £850 offered through its complaints process. The additional amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord that adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made. It also says that:
1. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days, and it will respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
2. It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the escalation request.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that, when it considers a complaint, it will assess whether it has followed its complaints procedure in line with the complaints policy. If it has not managed the complaint effectively, it can award up to £250 for an extensive failure.
The records show that the resident made a complaint on 5 September 2024. The landlord did not issue its stage 1 response until 27 March 2025, after intervention from this Service. This was an unreasonable delay of 128 days. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy, and the resident had to chase a response several times before eventually seeking help from this Service.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 31 March 2025. The landlord did not provide a response until 21 May 2025, again after intervention from this Service. This was a delay of 11 working days. While not significant, the delay would have prevented the resident from referring the issue to this Service sooner.
Across both complaint responses, the landlord apologised for its delays and poor communication. It also offered compensation of £225 in its stage 1 response for its delay in logging the complaint and for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter. This was a reasonable response; it appropriately acknowledged its failings and offered compensation in line with its policy.
Overall, the level of redress offered to the resident is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. It is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The guidance states that an award of £225 may remedy maladministration where there was a failure that had an adverse effect on the resident, and the landlord has acknowledged these failings. In this case, the landlord has addressed the identified failings by apologising and offering compensation which provides reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs to the first floor windows, a bathroom window, and the back door in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to write to the resident to:
1. Apologise for the additional service failures identified by the Ombudsman.
2. Pay £200 compensation directly to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling the outstanding repairs. This is in addition to the £850 offered through its complaint process. It must also provide this Service with evidence of payment.
3. Set out an action plan for the window repairs, including timeframes for the work. It must also send a copy of the plan to this Service.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £225 compensation that it awarded for its complaint handling failings. The Ombudsman found reasonable redress for the complaint handling based on the condition that it has paid this compensation. It should provide evidence of this payment within 4 weeks.