Peabody Trust (202527523)

Decision
Case ID	202527523
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	31 March 2026

 

Background

1. The resident lives in the top floor flat in a converted Victorian house with 3 storeys. She lives in the property with her son who has additional needs. After reporting cracks suddenly appearing in her property, she was placed in temporary accommodation while subsidence was investigated. Dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of these matters, she referred her complaint to us.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s report of subsidence in her property and its communication on the matter.
   2. The resident’s decant and request for a permanent move, and its communication on these matters.
   3. The resident’s complaint about the above matters.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of subsidence in her property and its communication on the matter.
   2. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s decant and request for a permanent move, and its communication on these matters.
   3. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint about the above matters.

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

 

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not proactively update the resident and failed to respond to most of her requests for updates about the subsidence case. In particular, it did not make clear the outcome of surveys or the basis of the claim to the insurer. It did not make clear how long it may take to investigate the report of subsidence. It also did not make clear whether it thought it should arrange an updated survey of the resident’s property given that other cracks had appeared in the building since the initial report.
5. The landlord did not explain the decant process to the resident at the time she moved out of the property and only sent the decant letter 6 months after. It did not make clear to the resident how long she may be in temporary accommodation. The landlord did not assess the needs of the resident and her son and what support it could provide. Also, it should have considered decanting the resident into another vacant Peabody property. With regards to the resident’s request for a permanent move, the landlord did not advise her of the process and timeframe, or otherwise update her.
6. The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint, then further prolonged the complaint process by sending a further response. In the stage 2 response, the landlord did not address all aspects of the resident’s complaint. The landlord also failed to register and respond to an earlier complaint.

 

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 30 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £900 made up as follows: £350 for her distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble arising from its failures in its handling of her reports of subsidence. £350 for the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble arising from its failures in its handling of her decant and request for a permanent move. £200 for the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble arising from its failures in its handling of her complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. 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  30 April 2026
3	Information to the Resident The landlord must write to the resident and provide the following information: The outcome of the surveys carried out and the findings of its own and its insurer’s investigations into her report of subsidence. Whether related information provided in respect of cracks at  other properties in the building, has affected its investigation of the resident’s report of cracks and action to be taken. The landlord must be mindful of data protection breaches with the information suitably redacted as possible. When works will be commencing in the resident’s flat and to the building structure and a schedule of the works. How long it anticipates the resident is likely to be required to remain in temporary accommodation. Whether it will provide alternative temporary accommodation in a vacant Peabody flat. Whether it will consider a claim from the resident for clothes and other items she had to buy.	No later than 30 April 2026
4	Case Review The landlord must carry out an internal case review covering its handling of the resident’s report of subsidence, her decant and request for a permanent move, and handling of her complaint. The review must: Identify the reasons for the failures found in this report, including delays, missed policy and procedural requirements, gaps in record‑keeping, and communication failures. Set out clear learning points and specific actions the landlord will take to prevent similar failures in future. Confirm how these actions will be monitored and embedded within the relevant operations of organisation. A written summary of the review must be provided to both the resident and this Service.	No later than 15 May 2026

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 October 2025	The resident raised a complaint and stated the following: a surveyor told her over 8 weeks ago that he had recommended a permanent decant due to structural issues the building insurer had not responded to a claim by the landlord. She understood cracks had since appeared in her neighbours’ properties, but the landlord did not send a surveyor she had only accepted 1-bedroom temporary accommodation as she thought it would be for a couple of months. She was living from a suitcase and there was limited storage. The landlord had extended the booking until February 2026 and disregarded the request for a permanent decant. Her son had started secondary school and was sharing a room with her she had made over 20 attempts to obtain clarity, a written agreement or confirmation of a permanent housing solution but had not received a response. This included a request for the decant agreement a previous complaint had been passed to the member of staff she had complained about, a housing officer, who closed the complaint she was not being supported as a vulnerable tenant. Also, her son’s wellbeing was affected as he could not access his belongings. During the summer holidays, he did not access to his video games and could not invite friends to the temporary accommodation they had been unable to access belongings which along with the disruption to their lifestyle and sharing a room had affected her and son’s mental health she had to buy new clothing and other items which was a financial strain
24 October 2025	The landlord sent the stage 1 response: due to subsidence, it recommended that the resident was permanently decanted. The Management Transfer Panel would consider the recommendation its surveyor would update the resident every 2 weeks; the housing officer was only dealing with the decant it accepted there were delays and that it did not update the resident regularly about progress of case and a permanent decant
30 October 2025	The resident escalated her complaint and said the following:  the stage 1 response did not address her complaint about lack of information regarding: –       not being provided the decant agreement –       clarification on when she would be moved to permanent accommodation –       details of compensation/disturbance allowances –       details of support for her and her son she had chased the landlord for 3 months before it contacted her she had to buy clothes as it was now winter she had to cancel her Wi-Fi and Sky contract due to remaining in temporary accommodation. She incurred a penalty fee
10 December 2025	The landlord sent the stage 2 response, originally. It accepted the stage 1 findings and said the following: the resident did not receive consistent updates about the decant information about the permanent decant process was unclear. However, it could not confirm a permanent decant unless the Management Transfer Panel agreed. The surveyor was progressing the application the resident was not issued a decant letter at the outset, which should have happened. It also did not provide information about allowances and support available in temporary accommodation the resident had to chase for information through the Customer Hub internal roles and responsibilities were not explained clearly the resident was left uncertain about the works, timescales, and next steps To put matters right: it would issue decant letter the surveyor would prepare the permanent decant application it would provide updates every 2 weeks the housing officer would support with issues concerning the temporary accommodation it had issued a letter explaining the allowances it would arrange a temporary decant to a void property
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us and explained why she was unhappy on 16 December 2025: the temporary accommodation was uncomfortable for her son he did not wish to return to her property either the landlord told her on 12 December 2025 that the Panel did not agree a permanent move despite the recommendation of the surveyor she did not know who to contact for advice she wanted confirmation that her property was no longer a danger she wanted compensation for the impact on her and son, poor communication, and staff conduct
14 January 2026	The landlord sent a revised stage 2 response. It now offered £800 compensation comprising: £500 – distress and Inconvenience £150 – additional effort spent chasing responses and coordinating responses £150 – delay in processing the complaint

 

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 resident’s report of subsidence in her property and the landlord’s communication
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

7. On 9 January 2025, the landlord’s building insurer advised the landlord that it would not approve further works as the claim was below the policy excess. The landlord therefore had to commission a contractor for remedial works to the resident’s property directly. The resident raised another complaint on 20 February 2026 after receiving information from a Subject Access Request. She raised concerns that works would be based on an outdated structural report as cracks had since appeared in the 2 other flats in the building. She also queried whether the landlord had completed investigations into the soil, drainage, and foundations in order to identify the cause of subsidence. She also asked why the landlord would not be repairing sloping floors or removing plasterboard that was surrounding cracks for further investigation. On 4 March 2026, the landlord confirmed it would raise a new formal complaint. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first through its complaints procedure. We will not therefore investigate issues raised in the complaint of 20 February 2026.
8. The resident has also advised us that since her complaint, the landlord decided to carry out another joint inspection with an independent surveyor. However, the landlord failed to turn up on the appointed date, 25 February 2026, or the rescheduled date of 3 March 2026. The resident further advised us that 4 operatives started works in her flat on 4 March 2026 without prior notice to her and while her personal items were still in the flat. She understood cracks were being plastered while her possessions were uncovered. Again, these are issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have therefore not investigated them in this report.

Report of subsidence

9. The landlord has a legal obligation under statute to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. On 6 June 2025, the resident reported that cracks had just appeared in her property. The landlord inspected that day. It noted “significant” cracks on the internal walls of the bathroom and hallway ceiling, and thought there may be subsidence. It recommended a structural engineer assess the foundations and the soil below the property through a ground survey. It also recommended inspecting the flat below. It noted floors were leaning to one side of the property. The landlord agreed that the resident should immediately move to temporary accommodation. In assessing that there may be an emergency and agreeing that the resident should move out, it took action to address any potential immediate risk to the resident.
10. On 17 June 2025, the landlord raised a claim for subsidence with its insurer. It said it thought the structural integrity of the building had been compromised due to factors including loose soils, poor drainage around the property, and water extraction. It recommended a “permanent” decant pending further instruction. It was appropriate that the landlord made a claim as the building insurer may have been responsible for remedying any structural problems affecting the resident’s flat. However, the landlord did not confirm to the resident the details of the claim. It also did not provide the likely timeframe for investigation of the claim.
11. On 23 June 2025, a structural surveyor inspected the resident’s flat and the basement. It recommended additional exploratory works to determine the nature and cause of the cracks in the bathroom. It could then identify remedial measures. To facilitate this, it suggested the landlord remove plasterboard to expose the full extent of the crack. The structural surveyor also noted a “minor” crack within the masonry wall next to the entrance of the resident’s flat. It recommended a repair using a steel reinforcing bar. However, the structural surveyor confirmed the issues noted did not pose any immediate risk to the structural stability of the property. The landlord did not inform the resident of the outcome of the survey.
12. The resident contacted the landlord several times during June and July seeking an update on works to her property. On 31 July 2025, she highlighted there had been no updates after 9 weeks. Ultimately, the landlord had failed to make clear to the resident how it was handling her report of subsidence and the findings it had reached at that stage.
13. There is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident on the investigations into her property until 8 August 2025, following further emails from the resident. On this date it advised that it would be completing a joint visit with the structural surveyor on 26 August 2025. However, again the landlord did not update her on the outcome. In fact, the landlord has not provided a record of this visit to the resident or this service.
14. On 26 August 2025, the resident asked the landlord to take into account a crack in the front room ceiling. On 29 August 2025, the resident told the landlord the residents in the other flats in the building had contacted her. She said they told her within the last 2 weeks huge cracks had appeared in their properties. On 15 September 2025, the landlord advised it had passed on this information to the structural team. However, it provided no further update to the resident. This was especially unreasonable as the cracks in the neighbour’s properties indicated that there may be a more substantial structural issues in the building than the cracks in her property alone may have indicated. Indeed, the initial inspection on 6 June 2025 had identified that the landlord should inspect of the other flats. The landlord also did not make clear whether it thought it should arrange an updated survey of the resident’s property given new cracks had appeared in the building since.
15. The landlord’s internal correspondence noted that the insurer wanted to monitor the resident’s flat until December 2025. However, the landlord has provided no evidence that it updated the resident of the insurer’s investigations, the timeframes involved, and when remedial works may commence. More generally, the landlord failed to ensure that it proactively updated the resident about the progress of the subsidence case to manage her expectations. It was only subsequent to the residents complaint that it nominated a point of contact and committed to send regular updates. The landlord should have proactively updated the resident earlier as its current Temporary Alternative Accommodation Policy which came into effect in July 2025 states the surveyor is responsible for “sharing information about the progress of works with colleagues and tenants”.
16. In summary, the landlord took action to address the immediate risk to the resident by agreeing temporary accommodation. It was also appropriate that it made a claim to its building insurer. However, it did not proactively update the resident and failed to respond toher requests for updates about the subsidence case. In particular, it did not make clear the outcome of surveys or the basis of the claim to the insurer. It did not make clear how long it may take to investigate the report of subsidence. It also did not respond to the resident’s report that new cracks had appeared in the building since. For these reasons, we find that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reports of subsidence.
17. We award the resident £350 compensation. In making this award, we have considered the range of compensation in our remedies guidance for cases of maladministration. Our award is within the range for cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

 

Complaint	The decant and resident’s request for a permanent move, and the landlord’s communication
Finding	Maladministration

 

18. The landlord’s Temporary Alternative Accommodation Policy in effect at the time when the resident reported cracks states an emergency move can include situations where the health and safety of the household would be at risk. Having considered the risk of subsidence, the landlord applied the policy by determining that the resident should not stay in her flat. The resident initially made her own arrangements before the landlord placed her in a 1-bedroom apartment on 5 July 2025.
19. The policy in effect at the time states the landlord “will ensure that the process is as easy as possible and will provide residents with appropriate support, particularly for the most vulnerable, providing clear information on their housing options in all circumstances… [It] will keep residents informed on the progress of the works to their home”. However, there is no evidence the landlord explained the decant process to the resident at the time. It was only on 8 December 2025, after the resident complained, that the landlord sent a letter outlining the process. The letter explained the resident may be eligible for payments for expenses and also an incentive payment for making her own arrangements for a period. The letter covered the storage and protection of goods. The letter made clear the surveyor should inform the resident about the progress and duration of works while the housing officer would update her about developments with the temporary accommodation. The landlord should have made this information clear from the outset. The resident also sent numerous emails prior to her complaint in which she requested this letter.
20. The decant letter also stated, “Before you vacate the property, please pack enough clothes and possessions for the duration of the move.” The landlord had not made clear to the resident how long she may be in temporary accommodation. She could not therefore make an informed decision how much clothes to bring. Moreover, according to her complaint, the landlord did not respond to her request to re-enter her flat to retrieve items. Therefore, she had to purchase winter clothes. The resident also noted in her complaint that due to her son’s medical condition, he benefited from playing video games and musical instruments. However, she did not have the opportunity to retrieve these items from her flat.
21. The resident explained in her complaint how staying in temporary accommodation, especially at a time her son changed school, along with the uncertainty over their flat affected their mental health. Aside from the lack of information, the landlord has not provided evidence that it assessed the needs of the resident and her son and what support it could provide. Again, it did not follow the Temporary Alternative Accommodation policy in this regard. The internal correspondence indicates that a decant officer had responsibility for liaising with the resident but did not do so.
22. The decant letter states if the works take longer than 4 weeks, the landlord will typically arrange for a tenant to move into a vacant Peabody property. This indicates that given the length of time the resident was likely to be away from her property, the landlord should have at least reviewed the suitability of the temporary accommodation. The resident has advised us that due to limited cooking facilities, storage space, and noise, the apartment is not suitable for a longer-term stay. She states sleeping on a sofa bed is not comfortable. However, there is no evidence that landlord checked in on her. Moreover, while the landlord in the stage 2 response committed to finding a void property as temporary accommodation, it has provided no evidence that it sought to do so.
23. The nature and scale of  the likely works was such that it was incumbent on the landlord to review its initial temporary accommodation placement and its continued suitability  – emergency / short term type temporary accommodation placements are not designed to meet medium or long term needs. A review would have ensured a balanced position.
24. When seeking updates from the landlord in June and July 2025, the resident said she understood the surveyor had recommended a permanent decant. The surveyor confirmed to her on 8 July 2025 that he had recommended a permanent decant. During emails sent during September 2025, the resident advised that she had not received an update from the surveyor including her request for a permanent decant. The landlord’s internal correspondence indicated that its Management Transfer Panel would decide whether she was eligible. However, the landlord has not provided evidence that it advised the resident of the process and timeframe, or that it otherwise updated the resident. Therefore, having raised the resident’s expectations that she may be transferred on a permanent basis, the landlord failed to manage them.
25. The Management Transfer Panel considered and declined the resident’s request on 9 December 2025. The landlord explained the decision by stating the resident could return when the building was repaired and safe. The landlord did not explain whether it could have submitted the application to the Panel sooner. Good practice would have been to seek an updated comment from the resident to include in the case consideration by the Panel and its unclear if that happened here.
26. In summary, the landlord did not explain the decant process to the resident at the time she moved out of the property and only sent the decant letter 6 months after. It did not make clear to the resident how long she may be in temporary accommodation. The landlord did not assess the needs of the resident and her son and what support it could provide. The decant letter indicates that the landlord should have considered decanting the resident into another vacant Peabody property. The landlord should have at least reviewed the suitability of the temporary accommodation. With regards to the resident’s request for a permanent move, the landlord did not advise her of the process and timeframe, or that it otherwise updated the resident. For these reasons, we find there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint.
27. We award the resident £350 compensation in respect of her distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble. In making this award, we have considered the range of compensation in our remedies guidance for cases of maladministration. Our award is within the range for cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

 

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

28. The landlord’s complaints procedure states it will log new complaints within 5 working days as a stage one 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. The landlord will acknowledge a complaint escalation within 5 working days of the escalation request being received. It will provide full response at stage 2 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. The landlord’s complaints procedure is consistent with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
29. At stage 1, the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 10 October 2025. It sent the stage 1 response on 24 October 2025. It thereby met the required timeframes for responding. The resident escalated her complaint on 30 October 2025 by responding to the member of staff who responded at stage 1. However, the landlord did not then acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 5 working days as required. The resident has provided evidence that she enquired about the status of the complaint about a month after. Ultimately, the stage 2 response of 10 December 2025 was delayed, sent 2 weeks after the target response time. Also, the resident incurred additional time and trouble pursuing the response.
30. Moreover, the landlord prolonged the complaints procedure by sending a further stage 2 response on 14 January 2026. The landlord offered compensation in the revised stage 2 response.  Landlords should consider redress for service failures when considering complaints and it could have offered compensation within the original stage 2 response.
31. The Ombudsman may make a determination of reasonable redress where a landlord has offered compensation that provides redress for failures and satisfactorily resolves the complaint. This is not the case where an offer of compensation is made after the completion of the landlord’s formal complaints procedure. Redress should be prior to when we accept a complaint for investigation and on the landlord’s own initiative. In this case, the landlord has offered compensation for the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble and delays in complaint handling. However, it only reconsidered its position following the complaint being referred to the Ombudsman. Therefore, we will not make a finding of reasonable redress.
32. The resident has also provided evidence that she initially made a complaint on 14 August 2025, which the landlord acknowledged. This was specifically regarding the landlord not acknowledging or responding to her concerns about how long she would be in temporary accommodation and her requests to retrieve possessions. The landlord did not respond to the complaint despite the resident sending at least 5 emails pursuing a response. On 25 September 2025, the resident found out that the complaint had not been raised and she should make a new complaint, according to her messages to the landlord. The Code confirms that a complaint must be raised when the resident expresses dissatisfaction with the response to their service request. The landlord did not follow the Code in this instance.
33. The Code also states landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions. In this case, the resident complained she had to buy clothes as it was now winter and had to cancel telecommunications contracts. The landlord did not respond to these aspects of the resident’s case.
34. In summary, the landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint, then further prolonged the complaint process by sending a further response. In the stage 2 response, the landlord did not address all aspects of the resident’s complaint. The landlord also failed to register and respond to an earlier complaint. For these reasons, we find that there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.
35. We award the resident £200 compensation. In making this award, we have considered the range of compensation in our remedies guidance for cases of maladministration. Our award is within the range for cases where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

 

Learning

36. The landlord may benefit from considering our guidance on “Temporary moves expectations”, which can be seen on our website, against its policies and procedures.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. Shortcomings in record keeping directly affected the landlord’s ability to demonstrate compliance with its Complaint Policy.
38. The landlord should consider ensuring staff who are investigating reports of cracks by other residents in the building have details of the issues within the resident’s property. If necessary, the repair records can be cross-referenced to gain a better understanding of the repair issues affecting the building as a whole.

Communication

39. The landlord failed to respond to the requests from the resident seeking updates on her case. Internal correspondence suggests that staff may have been unclear who was responsible for responding to the issues raised. Clearer delineation of roles at an earlier stage and managerial oversight to ensure regular, proactive updates may have mitigated the resident’s frustration and inconvenience.