Peabody Trust (202523703)

Background

1. The resident’s property is a 2-bedroom house. She lives in the property with her partner and 2 children, 1 of whom is asthmatic. The children share a bedroom.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, including related repairs to the windows and radiators.
   2. The conduct of the contractor who carried out works to the resident’s property when she was in temporary accommodation in 2023, including working at antisocial hours, leaving the property insecure, and damaging her belongings.
   3. Front door repairs.
   4. The resident’s reports of her neighbour using her bins to dispose of rubbish which led to maggots entering her property.
   5. The handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. the landlord offered reasonable redress that satisfactorily resolved the resident’s complaint about her reports of damp and mould in the property, including related repairs to the windows and radiators.
   2. There was service failure in the handling of the complaint.
4. We have not investigated the resident’s complaints about the conduct of the contractor, front door repairs, and the reports of her neighbour using her bins because they are outside our jurisdiction.

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

Summary of reasons

5. By apologising, offering compensation that was proportionate to the circumstances of the case, completing works, and reviewing the case the landlord offered redress to the resident which resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
6. The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 1. The landlord did not draw a link between the failings in its complaint handling and its remedy.
7. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The landlord placed the resident in temporary accommodation between January 2023 and April 2023 so its contractor could complete works at her property. When escalating her complaint to stage 2 on 2 July 2025, the resident sought to raise a complaint about the conduct of the contractor who worked on her property when she was in temporary accommodation in 2023. However, there is no evidence she raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when she became aware of the issue with the contractor. We have not seen evidence the resident was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate the complaint about the conduct of the contractor.
8. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure. When escalating her complaint to stage 2 on 2 July 2025, the resident raised a new issue of front door repairs. There is no evidence the resident raised this issue in her stage 1 complaint. The landlord should have the chance to act on the report then respond to any dissatisfaction with its response through both stages of its complaints procedure. For that reason, we will not investigate the complaint about front door repairs.
9. Similarly, when escalating her complaint to stage 2 on 2 July 2025, the resident raised a new issue about her neighbour using her bins to dispose of rubbish which led to maggots entering her property. There is no evidence the resident raised this issue in her stage 1 complaint. For that reason, we will not investigate the complaint about the neighbour.

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’s Damp, Mould and Condensation policy states “We will investigate all report of damp, mould and condensation within residents’ homes where we have responsibility for repairs. We will make sure we carry out, and complete, any necessary repairs that would help tackle the issue.” Between January and 2023 the landlord completed mould treatment works while the resident and her family were in temporary accommodation.
11. On 11 December 2024, the resident complained that the property had extreme black mould. She said both her children were under the hospital for health conditions related to the mould. She stated that issues had been outstanding for “ages”. Following the resident’s complaint on 11 December 2024, the landlord raised a repair order. It noted there was damp again in the bathroom and worse in the bedroom. The landlord’s records show that the resident made one other report of damp and mould in the preceding 12 months. This was on 19 August 2024 when she reported mould on the bathroom wall. The landlord’s records do not indicate that it carried out an inspection or repair in response. The landlord’s records also do not show that the landlord carried out repairs following the repair order of 11 December 2024, or that there were access difficulties. The landlord was required to investigate and complete mould works in response to these reports; however, there is no evidence it did so.
12. According to the landlord’s complaint response, the resident made another report on 8 January 2025. Its records show it next raised an order to investigate damp and mould on 25 March 2025. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out an inspection at this time though.
13. On 13 May 2025, the landlord completed a mould wash to the living room and bedrooms. On 14 April 2025, the landlord raised an order for an electrical contractor to install 2 humidistat fans, one in the living room and one in the back bedroom. This was an appropriate step as moisture extraction can help prevent the occurrence of damp and mould. After receiving a quote from its contractor, the landlord authorised the works on 29 April 2025. It is not disputed that the fans were installed but the landlord’s records do not indicate when.
14. In summary, the landlord ultimately took action to resolve the damp and mould by clearing the mould and installing extractor fans. However, under its Repairs Policy, it should have completed the mould wash within 28 days, which is its timeframe for Routine repairs. It did not meet this timeframe. The landlord’s records do not confirm when the fans were installed. As such, it is not possible to confirm that the landlord installed the fans within the 28-day timeframe set out in the Repairs Policy.

Radiator

15. Also on 19 August 2024, the landlord raised an order after the resident reported that the radiator in the children’s bedroom had fallen off the wall. The landlord arranged an appointment for 19 November 2024. There is no evidence that the resident agreed an appointment before this date; however, the landlord cancelled the appointment of 19 November 2024 without notice.
16. The landlord raised another order for its plastering contractor to reinforce the plaster on the walls before rehanging the radiator on 11 December 2024. however, on 18 December 2024, the contractor assessed no plastering was required and the radiator could be hung with brackets. The landlord took no further action until raising another order to reinforce the plaster on 11 March 2025. This was 3 months after the plasterer visit which was an unreasonable length of time. It is not clear whether any plastering works were completed after the order of 11 March 2025; in any event, the landlord did not reinstall the radiator which was the main job, and which could have been completed after any new plaster had dried.
17. There is no evidence the landlord took further steps to ensure there was a functional radiator in the children’s bedroom until speaking to the resident about her complaint on 5 June 2025. On the following day, it raised a new order to rehang the radiator. It did not gain access at a visit on 10 June 2025. It attended on 23 July 2025 but did not rehang the radiator as brackets were missing. This caused an avoidable delay as it had already had the opportunity to identify what brackets were required.
18. After unsuccessfully trying to rehang the radiator on 22 August 2025, the landlord decided to install a new radiator. It installed the new radiator on 26 September 2025. This was 13 months after the resident had reported the issue. While the landlord needed to arrange access, it was responsible for aspects of the delay. There were failed appointments due to cancellations and no works being completed. The landlord also did not take action to progress the repair until it investigated the resident’s complaint. This indicated a lack of oversight and urgency. Being able to heat the room may have prevented the spread of mould or assisted the use of natural ventilation to inhibit mould growth. The lack of urgency was particularly unreasonable as it was aware that the resident’s son was vulnerable due to his medical condition. In fact, its repair records noted a “Very vul child on site”.

Window

19. On 25 March 2025, the resident reported that the windows in both bedrooms did not open, and both had condensation. At its visit of 25 April 2025, the electrical contractor recommended repairing or replacing the window in the back bedroom to help prevent damp. This reinforced the need for the landlord to inspect and assess what works it should carry out to the windows; however, there is no evidence that it did so at this time.
20. The landlord did not raise an order to inspect the windows to resolve damp and mould until 6 June 2025. Again, this followed speaking to resident about her complaint showing that its approach to the repair was reactive.
21. The landlord’s records indicate that the window contractor attended to replace the back bedroom window on 30 July 2025 but did not complete the works due to possible asbestos in the soffits. The landlord later installed the window in the bedroom on 29 August 2025. The Repairs Policy states that it aims to complete Major Repairs, including window replacements within 60 calendar days. The landlord did not meet this timeframe in this instance.
22. The resident originally reported repairs to both bedroom windows. The stage 1 response noted she was waiting for the living room window to be replaced too. It is not evident that the landlord assessed whether the other bedroom window and living room window required repairs or replacement. If it did, it is not evident it communicated its findings to the resident. It therefore did not fully address the resident’s request for window works to tackle mould and damp.

Summary

23. In summary, following the resident’s reports, there were delays by the landlord in investigating and taking action to address the matter. In particular, it delayed in completing a mould wash, repairing a radiator, and renewing a window. It was also not clear about its assessment of window repairs. The landlord in its stage 2 response offered compensation equivalent to 10% of the resident’s rent from the date of the formal complaint for loss of enjoyment of the property. The landlord extended the compensation to 9 January 2026. In doing so, it was responsive to evolving circumstances. This is because it anticipated works being completed by 1 September 2025. However, the radiator was installed after this date. It also carried out further works after the stage 2 response after the resident reported damp and mould had returned on 8 December 2025. The works included repairing an extractor fan on 18 December 2024. The resident confirmed to the landlord on 9 January 2026, that repairs had been completed.
24. The landlord’s Compensation Policy allows it to award compensation by way of a proportion of the rent if there is a loss or partial loss of the room. The landlord’s offer of 10 % of the rent for loss of enjoyment of the property followed this. The offer of 10% was reasonable as the landlord had carried out works including clearing the mould. In addition, the landlord offered compensation for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble. This was £280 at stage 2 increased to £1,200, which equates to £92.31 per month since the complaint of 11 December 2024. Taken altogether, the landlord offered compensation that was proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
25. Offering redress also entails putting the matter right and learning from outcomes. As per our Complaint Handling Code, landlords are expected to prioritise complaint handling and a culture of learning from complaints. They must look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether service improvements can be made as a result of any learning from the complaint. In its complaint responses, the landlord outlined “What We’ve learned”. It noted shortcomings in its record keeping and said it would contact its contractor about missed appointment and service levels. It stated it would review its communication process to ensure residents were updated, ensure all repairs were completed promptly, and reinforce procedures to prevent delays in addressing health related concerns. It is evident from this that the landlord has sought to learn from the complaint.
26. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them. In this case, by apologising, offering compensation, completing works, and reviewing the case the landlord offered redress to the resident which resolved the complaint satisfactorily. This finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the landlord’s handling of damp and mould issues or the impact on the resident was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were considerable failings by the landlord, which its compensation offer and case review provided redress for in line with the Ombudsman’s approach.

27. The landlord’s Complaints Procedure states it will log new complaints within 5 working days as a stage 1 complaint and provide a response within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. If it needs more time, it will provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
28. In this case, after registering the resident’s complaint on 11 December 2024, the landlord took 6 months to send the stage 1 response, on 6 June 2025. The landlord has not provided evidence that it sent holding responses. It only contacted the resident twice during this period, on 18 March 2025 and on 5 June 2025. The open complaint provided a process and framework for the landlord to monitor the substantive repair issue and expedite necessary works. The complaint required members of staff to have responsibility for managing the complaint and overseeing the resolution of the leaks. Despite this, the landlord did not take the necessary action to resolve the complaint. In fact, it would appear that it lost oversight of the complaint.
29. The complaints procedure states that at stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days of receipt. It will provide a full response within 20 working days of the request being acknowledged. If it needs more time, it will provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
30. In this case, the landlord registered the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 8 July 2025. It sent a holding response within 20 working days on 5 August 2025, as allowed for by the complaints procedure. It extended the deadline to 3 September 2025 and sent the stage 2 response before this date. There was therefore no failure in the landlord’s complaint handling at stage 2.
31. The landlord offered £70 for delays and poor communication in the handling of the stage 1 complaint. This offer was replaced in the response of 9 January 2026. In this response, the awards for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble included “stress caused due to complaint handling” and “time taken to resolve complaint”. However, the landlord did not specify exactly how much it was awarding for these failures; the awards covered failings in the substantive repair issues as well. As such, the landlord did not draw a link between the failings in its complaint handling and its remedy. For this reason, we find there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.
32. As the landlord’s award for complaint handling is not clear, we award the resident a further £120 compensation for the failures in its handling of the complaint at stage 1. This is calculated at £20 per month, and takes into account the lack of contact and oversight of the substantive issues complained about.
33. In its complaint responses, under the “What We’ve Learned” section, the landlord said it would be taking steps to ensure it met its timescales for complaint responses. This included recruiting more staff. In light of the steps already being taken, we have not ordered the landlord to conduct a case review of its complaints handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. Our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management notes that “Good records assist housing providers to offer efficient and effective services by ensuring that decisions and actions are taken based on good quality information. Clear information is readily available to any member of staff who becomes responsible for a particular matter, easing handovers between staff. Communication with residents is improved when staff are able to access all of the relevant up to date information and get a good understanding of the issue, and what action has been taken (or not taken) and why. If a housing provider is asked to explain what happened, and why, good records will enable it to do so. Poor quality or absent records result in the landlord being unable to answer questions, or being unable to provide evidence to support its explanation – this impacts negatively on its credibility and relationships with the requestor.”
35. Our Spotlight Report on Repairs and Maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
    1. let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
    2. gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory.
36. In this case, the landlord lost oversight of the resident’s case and delayed in completing works and inspections. It is not clear from the landlord’s records what works were completed at certain visits, or when. There were also visits where no works were carried out. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord had better followed the advice and recommendations in our Spotlight Reports.

Communication

37. Our Spotlight Report on Attitude, Rights and Respect makes various recommendations for landlords including:
    1. Undertake a review at Board level as to whether … [the landlord is] currently offering a ‘human-centric’ service provision. If not, identify the barriers to this and what needs to change in order to introduce and then embed this culture and ethos.
    2. Introduce minimum staff training requirements such as Dementia Friends, and training on customer care, mental health, learning disabilities, and sight and hearing loss.
    3. Maintain accurate records of residents’ vulnerabilities and individual circumstances.
38. The resident advised us that she wants the landlord to review its policies regarding children with breathing difficulties and training for management on how to speak with and deal with tenants. The landlord may wish to consider the way it communicates with the resident and other tenants in conjunction with our Spotlight Report.