Peabody Trust (202402374)

Decision
Case ID	202402374
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	22 December 2025

Background

The resident and her partner are joint shared owners of a flat in a purpose-build block. They told the landlord that, especially in summer, the flat becomes too warm, and this impacts the resident’s health conditions. The local authority served a hazard awareness notice for excess heat. This said that while there were no reasonable works that would remove the hazard, there were some recommended works that could improve matters. The resident asked the landlord to do the works, but the landlord said it was not compulsory for it to do so, especially as the resident, a leaseholder, was responsible for repairs and improvements to the flat. The resident complained to the landlord about this, and after receiving a stage 2 complaint response, asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of the flat getting too hot.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the flat getting too hot.
There was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of reports of the flat getting too hot

The landlord did not give a clear and complete explanation of its position, with reference to the terms of the lease. This meant the resident lacked confidence it had reached a lawful decision.
There were significant delays and gaps in communication throughout the handling of this case. This caused the resident frustration, led her to spend unnecessary time chasing responses, and prevented her from taking timely action to address the excess heat through the leaseholder alterations process.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not acknowledge and define the resident’s complaints.
It did not investigate and provide a substantive response to the first complaint.
It did not follow its complaints policy regarding complaint escalation.
There was a log delay acknowledging the complaint at stage 2.
However, the landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised, demonstrated learning from the complaint, and provided more than proportionate redress.

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 provided by a senior officer 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 19 January 2026
	Compensation (4 weeks) The landlord must pay the resident £350 for inconvenience and distress as a result of its handling of her reports of the flat getting too hot. 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 in relation to the handling of this complaint.	No later than 19 January 2026
	The landlord should consider whether it will increase the window openings, tint the window glazing, and provide a balcony awning (as recommended by the hazard awareness notice), taking into account that the terms of the lease say the balcony, the window frames and external window glazing do not form part of the premises for which the resident is responsible. It should also take into account the resident’s health conditions, and the impact of high temperatures on these. It should clearly communicate its decision, with reasons, to the resident in writing.	No later than 19 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, it is recommended the landlord directly pay the resident the £550 compensation for complaint handling offered at stage 2.
The landlord should satisfy itself that its records on any additional needs the resident has are correct and up to date.
The landlord should consider waiving all, or part of the administration fee for the leaseholder alterations process, given the importance of the works in addressing the category 1 hazard.
The landlord should signpost and support the resident to make a possible application for a disabled facilities grant to fund any alterations she is responsible for.
It is recommended that relevant staff involved in this case undertake complaint handling learning from our Centre for Learning ( https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/centre-for-learning/key-topics/complaint-handling/).

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 June 2023	Complaint 1 The landlord opened a new case on its complaints system. It recorded that the resident had complained about its handling of her reports about the flat getting too hot, and its response to the hazard awareness notice.
14 August 2023	The landlord gave a stage 1 response to complaint 1. It said it had been unable to contact the resident, and so could not investigate the complaint.
14 August 2023	The resident told the landlord she wanted the complaint re-opening, as the issue had not been resolved. She wanted the landlord to act on the hazard awareness notice.
16 August 2023	The resident requested a response to her 14 August 2023 email.
16 August 2023	The landlord told the resident complaint 1 had been re-allocated to a different officer, and her correspondence would be forwarded to them.
11 September 2023	The resident requested a response to her 14 August 2023 email. She said she may need to escalate the complaint to stage 2 if the landlord did not respond.
29 September 2023	The resident told the landlord she wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2 if it did not respond by 6 October 2023.
2 November 2023	Complaint 2 The landlord opened a new case on its complaint system. It recorded that the resident had complained that the landlord has not escalated the complaint to stage 2, and she was unhappy with its response to the hazard awareness notice.
9 November 2023	The resident told the landlord: She wanted the landlord to install cooling measures in her flat, to address the category 1 hazard. She reported that the flat was too hot to the previous landlord in 2018, and reported it to the current landlord in around February 2023. She asked for complaint 1 to be escalated to stage 2 in around September 2023. Since then the landlord had not responded to her emails or phone calls.
14 November 2023	The landlord asked for an extension to provide a stage 1 response, until 4 December 2023.
27 November 2023	The landlord spoke to the resident on the phone and apologised for complaint handling delays. It was agreed that it would provide a stage 1 response under complaint 2.
5 December 2023	The landlord gave a stage 1 response to complaint 2. It said: The resident had to go through its leaseholder alterations process in order to carry out the works recommended in the hazard awareness notice. It offered £300 compensation for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience in relation to the complaint, and bringing the matter to its attention.
5 January 2024	The resident told the landlord she would not accept the £300 compensation, but would accept £550 (the original £300 plus £250 for the leaseholder alterations process administration fee).
10 January 2024	After further correspondence with the resident, the landlord made a revised stage 1 offer of £550 compensation.
11 January 2024	The resident told the landlord she would accept £550 in respect of complaint 2, which she saw as being primarily about poor customer service, but wanted complaint 1, which she saw as being about the landlord’s response to the hazard awareness notice, to remain open.
12 January 2024	The resident and landlord corresponded further about the stage 1 response. The landlord explained that complaint 2 dealt with both the flat getting too not/hazard awareness notice, and customer service. It said if the resident accepted the £550 compensation the complaint would be closed.
19 January 2024	The resident asked to escalate complaint 2 to stage 2.
25 January to 6 March 2024	The resident contacted the landlord at least 5 times to chase a response.
17 July 2024	We contacted the landlord to ask it to respond to the resident.
22 July 2024	The landlord acknowledged complaint 2 at stage 2 of its complaints process.
16 August 2024	The landlord gave a stage 2 response to complaint 2. It said: The hazard awareness notice had been reviewed by several of its teams. It was not statutory for it to carry out the recommendations, especially taking into account the ownership status of the flat. As the resident is a leaseholder, she is responsible for internal repairs and improvements to the flat. She may consider implementing the recommendations through its leaseholder alterations process. It acknowledged and apologised for extensive complaint handling failures, and offered a total of £550 compensation, broken down as follows: – £300 for failure of adequately investigate or respond to the June 2023 complaint. – £150 for lack of response to her initial stage 2 request, prior to November 2023. – £100 for the resident’s time and trouble, leading to the intervention of the Housing Ombudsman Service.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. She said the temperature inside the flat can at times reach 24 to 25 degrees centigrade. She highlighted the impact of this on her health, and her finances, as she has had to pay for different items (such as a portable air conditioning unit) to mitigate the impact of the heat. She said she has found the landlord’s leaseholder alterations process difficult to access, in particular she wanted the landlord to waive the admin fee in light of her medical conditions.

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	Handling of reports of flat getting too hot
Finding	Maladministration

The lease of the property is held jointly by the resident who contacted our service, and her partner. Both residents have corresponded with the landlord about the complaint. Within this report “the resident” will be used to refer to both the resident who contacted this service, and her partner.

What we have not investigated and why

We expect residents to raise complaints within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months of the issue, and for landlords to respond within appropriate timescales. This is because over time, evidence may be lost and staff may leave, making thorough investigation difficult. Therefore, this investigation has focussed on the period from June 2022 (12 months before the resident’s complaint) to August 2024 (when the landlord gave its stage 2 response).
Although the resident had raised a complaint with Catalyst Housing Association, the previous landlord, prior to it becoming a subsidiary of Peabody in April 2022, given the passage of it would not be fair, nor likely possible, to accurately investigate the current landlord for the potential actions or omissions of the previous landlord.
After the 16 August 2024 stage 2 response the resident made an application to the landlord under its leaseholder alterations process. We cannot investigate the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder alterations process as this has not yet formed part of a formal complaint to the landlord. The resident can make a new complaint to the landlord about the handling of the process if she is dissatisfied with this.
The resident told us that the temperature of the flat affected her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it lasted. We’ve not investigated this further. We can however decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The resident has told us that she believes the landlord did not fulfil its duty to make reasonable adjustments for her, as a disabled person, under the Equality Act 2010. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act – this can only be done by the courts. Nevertheless, we have assessed whether the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to, the resident were appropriate, fair and reasonable.

Handling of reports of flat getting too hot

The landlord’s final position, as set out in its 16 August 2024 stage 2 response was that it would not do the works recommended by the 15 March 2023 hazard awareness notice. It explained that:
1. There was no legal requirement for landlord’s to act on hazard awareness notices.
2. As a leaseholder the resident was responsible for repairs and improvements to the flat.
3. The resident may wish to consider an application for permission to carry out the improvements through its leaseholder alterations process.
The landlord was correct that there was no legal requirement for any remedial action as a result of the hazard awareness notice. This was made clear within the notice itself, as were the local authority’s reasons for not making a notice that would require the landlord to take any compulsory steps (such as an improvement notice).
The terms of the lease support the landlord’s statement that resident was responsible for repairs and improvements to the premises. However, the lease says the premises does not include (among other elements):
1. The balcony.
2. Window frames and external window glazing.
As the hazard awareness notice said the landlord must consider increasing the window openings, tinting the window glazing, and providing a balcony awning (among other works), the landlord should have at least considered doing the suggested works to the balcony and windows. However, there is no evidence seen that the landlord explained to the resident its consideration of carrying out these works, in light of its responsibilities under lease, and the reasons it had decided not to do the works. This was particularly poor given the landlord was aware of the impact of the flat becoming too hot on the resident’s health conditions.
The lack of a clear and complete explanation of the landlord’s position, with reference to the lease, meant the resident lacked confidence in the landlord’s decision, and she expended time and trouble communicating further with the landlord as a result of this.
The landlord’s records demonstrate significant delays and gaps in communication throughout the handling of this case, for example:
1. On 14 February 2023, the landlord advised the resident she would be contacted within 5 working days. However, a response was only provided after 10 working days, after the resident chased the landlord for a reply.
2. Between 15 December 2023 and 23 January 2024, there was a communication gap of 24 working days during which the landlord failed to respond despite multiple follow-up emails from the resident.
3. After the resident submitted the hazard awareness notice on 21 March 2023, the landlord did not provide its position until 16 August 2023, approximately 5 months later, requiring the resident to repeatedly chase the landlord. Internal correspondence indicates the officer the resident was originally communicating with had left the organisation, but there is no evidence this was communicated to the resident, or that measures such as email forwarding, and reassignment of the officer’s workload were put in place.
The landlord’s poor communication practices contributed to the resident’s frustration and view that the landlord did not care and take seriously her reports of the impact of the temperature in the flat on her health. She expended unnecessary time and trouble chasing the landlord to respond to her. The delay and lack of clarity in communicating its position caused a knock-on delay in the resident being able to take action to resolve the excess heat through the leaseholder alterations process. This was particularly poor given the resident reported a negative impact on her health due to the flat becoming too hot during warmer weather.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaints policy required the landlord to:
1. Acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days.
2. Respond at stage 1 within 10 working days (with provision for extensions of up to 10 working days).
3. Escalate the complaint to stage 2 if the resident asked for this within 10 working days of receiving the stage 1 response.
4. Respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the request being received (with provision for extensions of up to 20 working days).
The landlord did not follow its complaints policy, and the complaints process was confused, and subject to delays. It did not acknowledge and define complaint 1. The lack of a clear complaint definition contributed to the resident’s later confusion about the subject and scope of each complaint. It took 44 working days to respond at stage 1, which far exceeded its policy timeframe. It was unreasonable that it did not investigate and provide a substantive response to the complaint. Although it had been unable to contact the resident to get further information, it should still have investigated based on the information it already had, including its own records. This caused an unnecessary delay in the resident receiving the landlord’s final position in response to the complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord at least 7 times between 14 August 2023 and 9 November 2023, at first asking for a substantive stage 1 response to complaint 1, and from 6 October 2023 onwards, asking to escalate it to stage 2. Other than telling her on 16 August 2023 that the case had been re-allocated, the landlord did not provide any response to her requests. This was poor communication on the part of the landlord and caused the resident to expend unnecessary time and trouble chasing the landlord to respond.
The resident’s request to escalate complaint 1 was made outside of the 10 working days required by the landlord’s complaint policy current at the time, so it was not obliged to escalate the complaint to stage 2. However, its should have responded to the resident’s contacts and explained its position and its intentions. That it did not do so led to frustration, and contributed to later confusion on the part of the resident as to why complaint 1 had not been dealt with at stage 2.
The landlord communicated with the resident on 14 and 27 November 2023 and it recorded it had agreed with the resident that it would provide a fresh stage 1 response under complaint 2, and that this would be provided by 4 December 2023. However, it did not define complaint 2. This contributed to the resident’s later confusion.
The landlord’s 5 December 2023 stage 1 response was given 15 working days after its 14 November 2023 complaint acknowledgement, outside of its policy timeframe. While it asked for an extension of time on 14 November 2023, it said it would respond by 4 December 2023, and it did not do so.
Following the stage 1 response, the landlord entered into communication with the resident, who requested a higher compensation offer. It provided a revised stage 1 offer of £550 compensation on 10 January 2024. The resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 19 January 2024, and then contacted the landlord at least 5 times between then and 6 March 2024 to chase a response. The stage 1 complaint officer had provided the resident with their manager’s contact details, and the resident had been emailing and telephoning that person, but received no response.
Later correspondence indicates this person had either moved to a new position, or left the organisation. The landlord failed to put in place measures (such as email forwarding) that would have ensured the resident’s emails were responded to. This caused frustration to the resident and brought additional delay to the complaints process.
Had the landlord strictly followed its own complaints procedure, and advised the resident she was out of time to escalate the complaint when she first expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response on 5 January 2024, or immediately escalated the complaint rather than entering into negotiation with her about the compensation amount, this delay and confusion could have been avoided.
The landlord did not acknowledge complaint number 2 at stage 2 until 22 July 2024, 128 working days after the resident’s first request. This was only done after intervention from our service. The landlord still did not define the complaint.
The stage 2 response was given on 16 August 2024, 19 working days after acknowledgement. This appropriately acknowledged and apologised for extensive complaint handling failures, and the significant impact of these on the resident. The landlord demonstrated learning from the complaint by saying it had shared feedback on its failures with its complaint management team. Whilst there were significant failings involved, the £550 compensation offered was more than proportionate redress, which satisfactorily resolved this element of the complaint.

Learning

The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures at stage 2, and fed back to its complaint management team about these. This would have made it possible for staff to learn from earlier mistakes.
There is no evidence seen that the landlord has reviewed its handling of the resident’s reports of the flat overheating, or taken any learning from this.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should consider our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management, and consider any improvements to be made regarding data transfer completeness during mergers.

Communication

Overall the landlord did not do enough to make clear its position, and there were significant delays and gaps in communication.