Peabody Trust (202451255)

Decision
Case ID	202451255
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The resident has fibromyalgia and an inflammatory joint condition. Between October 2024 and November 2024, the resident reported a leak from her shower which caused damage into her hall. She also reported repairs to her kitchen drawer and countertop.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord when it identified failings in its response to the resident’s repair requests.
There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord when it identified failings in its complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord recognised distress and inconvenience caused by its repairs delays. It apologised, offered redress, and committed to carry out the repairs. These were reasonable steps in the circumstances.
The landlord acknowledged time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures and offered redress which was reasonable. It further committed to learning to address its complaint handing process and communication.

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
It is recommended that the landlord considers supporting the resident with a Disabilities Facilities Grant (DFG) assessment considering the residents request for adaptations of her kitchen.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
21 February 2025	The resident raised a complaint with the landlord about several outstanding repairs in her home after a survey. She said that: The kitchen was not fit for purpose considering her disabilities. She was unhappy that the bathroom had years of leaks through the ceiling into her electrics because of poor workmanship. Historical leaks caused her to have to replace flooring and redecorate and contractors cancelled an appointment to replace bathroom tiling. The leak was ongoing when her shower is used. She was unhappy that there was a gap in the front door. She said that the landlord discriminated against her because her neighbour recently received a new bathroom after a leak. As a resolution, she wanted a new bathroom, the kitchen repairs completed, and the front door repaired.
11 March 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. The landlord: Said that it only surveyed her kitchen countertop because the resident had not reported any other issues with the kitchen. Said that its surveyor reported that the resident did not want the bathroom surveyed. Explained that her bathroom was not due for renewal until 2033. Explained that it could not provide details of work to her neighbours bathroom but assured her that her neighbour had not received preferential treatment. Apologised for a lack of communication and professionalism from its repairs staff and a delay in its complaint response. As a resolution the landlord: Arranged a surveyor to attend and raise all required work orders in the property. Offered compensation of £300 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused.
16 March 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. The resident: Disputed the landlords position that she did not report further repair issues to the surveyor. She said there were ongoing repairs to the bathroom and the hallway, which is why these issues were not raised. Said that she did report further issues with her kitchen to the surveyor. Said that her oven was difficult to clean because of her mobility issues. Remained unhappy with the communication from the contractors in arranging and cancelling appointments. Was unhappy that the complaint response was issued while the repair issues remained outstanding.
22 July 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. The landlord: Apologised for the delay in providing a stage 2 complaint response and acknowledged the delay in resolving the outstanding repairs. As a resolution it said it would monitor and coordinate the repairs and check when the works are complete to ensure the resident was happy. Advised the resident to raise any further repair issues separate to the complaint. Offered compensation of £375 for the inconvenience and delays, compromising: – £250 distress and inconvenience caused by repair delays. – £125 time and trouble for complaint handling delays. The landlord reviewed the resident’s case and highlighted areas for improvements in its communication and repairs process. It confirmed it was working to improve its complaint handling process.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 14 August 2025, the resident reported to us that she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. She said that the response was not comprehensive enough and was concerned that the proposed bathroom repair would be poor. She wanted the landlord to confirm that she required a new bath, new bath piping, a new shower and taps set, new shower screen, and bathroom shower panels. She reported that there is a leak into her hall when the shower is used.

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 response to the resident’s repair requests.
Finding	Reasonable redress

It is not disputed that there were failings with the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord accepted delays in its repairs and offered redress for distress and inconvenience. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is our role to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. We consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
On 13 September 2024, the landlord responded to an emergency leak in the resident’s bathroom. On 23 October 2024, the resident reported a containable leak. She reported that a leak when she used the shower, and on 24 October 2024 she reported that her kitchen drawer has come away. On 4 November 2024, the resident chased the repairs. She reported that the leak from her shower has damaged her smoke alarm and lights and she was concerned that it would damage her floor. She reported that the kitchen drawer and worktop repair remains outstanding.
On 6 November 2024, the landlord responded to the resident to confirm that it had completed the kitchen drawer repair that day and it had raised work orders for its contractor to track and trace the leak and repair the kitchen worktop. It advised that it would carry out remedial works when the leak was repaired. It had made safe the electrics and replaced the smoke alarm. This was appropriate.
The evidence shows that a plumber attended on 26 November 2024 to track and trace the leak and booked a follow-on repair for 18 December 2024 to replace the bathroom tiles as a resolution to the leak. In her initial complaint, the resident said this appointment did not take place. The landlord acknowledged this service failing in its complaint response.
On 26 November 2024, the records show that the resident refused the kitchen worktop repair because she wanted a surveyor from the landlord to inspect the damage. The landlord carried out the survey on 5 December 2024. On 18 December 2024, the landlord raised a work order for the contractor to fit a new kitchen work top. This was reasonable.
On 21 February 2025, the resident complained that the landlord had not completed the bathroom leak repair or the kitchen repair. She reported issues with her kitchen, bathroom, front door, and hall. On 11 March 2025, in its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord raised another survey to inspect all issues the resident had in her kitchen, bathroom, bedroom and hallway. This was a reasonable action to take to ensure that the resident agreed with the required repairs.
On 3 April 2025, the landlord carried out a survey and its records show that it raised repairs with its contractor on 9 April 2025 to repair the issues the resident raised in her complaint response. This was a reasonable response by the landlord.
On 30 June 2025, the resident told the landlord that it had not carried out the repairs and the property continued to deteriorate because of the leak. On the same day, the landlord contacted the contractor for an update. The contractor replied and apologised that there was confusion on its end about the appointment. On 2 July 2025, it emailed the resident to schedule the repair and provided a schedule of works. This error caused a delay of 12 weeks in getting the repair appointment booked. This was a service failing and caused delay to the resident.
On 2 July 2025, the resident responded that she did not feel the schedule of works was sufficient and reported that there was further damage to her walls and the plugs have broken in downstairs sink and bathroom. She highlighted that her neighbour received a new bathroom after a leak and said that she should receive no less than her neighbour. The landlord replied that it could add the walls on to the work schedule and explained that the contractor could only repair the works raised by the surveyor. This was a reasonable response by the landlord.
The evidence shows that between 3 July 2025 and 22 July 2025, when it provided its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord contacted the resident on several occasions to book in the repairs. While the resident had concerns about the work schedule, the landlord continued to engage with the resident to book the works in. This was reasonable.
After the resident exhausted the complaints procedure the landlord continued to liaise with the resident to book in the repairs. On 20 August 2025, the resident agreed to the kitchen repairs only. On 5 September 2025, internal emails of the landlord suggest a further attendance with the resident to discuss the necessary works. The evidence indicates that it carried out a further inspection on 23 September 2025 and raised further works. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take to complete the repairs.
As part of the resident’s complaint, she reported that she felt discriminated against because her neighbour received a new bathroom following a leak. As a resolution, she wanted information on the works completed to her neighbours bathroom and she requested a new bathroom. The landlord checked its records and confirmed that her bathroom was not due to be upgraded until 2033, however it would complete any required bathroom repairs in the meantime. The landlord said that it could not provide information on her neighbours repairs. This was an appropriate response by the landlord.
Based on the evidence, there were repair delays for which the landlord was responsible. The landlord failed to follow up on work orders raised in December 2024 up until the resident raised a complaint. After it carried out a further survey and raised further work orders there was a further delay of 12 weeks due to miscommunication with its contractor. The landlord recognised the distress and inconvenience caused by these delays and offered £250 compensation. This was a reasonable offer in line with our Remedies Guidance.
It is acknowledged that the resident was reluctant to allow further repairs and stated that she had experienced historical issues with the landlord’s repairs. However, the landlord took reasonable steps to assure the resident and appropriately tracked the agreed actions of its complaint response to complete the repairs.
When providing evidence to the Ombudsman, the repairs remained outstanding, however the evidence shows that the landlord continued to liaise with the resident to complete the works. Should the resident remain unhappy with the repairs, she may raise a further complaint as this investigation did not cover the events after 23 September 2025.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response 2 working days beyond its timescales. It provided its stage 2 complaint response 65 working days beyond its timescales. The landlord contacted the resident on 4 July 2025 to explain that they were experiencing delays in assigning complaints to stage 2. This was a significant delay and the landlord did not dispute this service failing. It is acknowledged that during this period, the landlord continued to attempt to address the substantive issue of the complaint. In its stage 2 complaint response it apologised, committed to improve its communication, and its complaint handling process, and offered £125 for this failing. This was a reasonable offer in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Learning

Complaint handling

Part of the resident’s complaint was that she required a new kitchen because of her mobility issues. It is acknowledged that the landlord addressed this issue separate to its complaints response and appropriately advised the resident to obtain an occupational health referral from her GP. While this was not an issue that the resident asked us to investigate, the landlord should have considered all elements of the resident’s complaint in its complaint response.