Peabody Trust (202501895)

Decision
Case ID	202501895
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	29 April 2026

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom ground-floor flat with 2 two children and an adult child. One child has autism, and the other has mental health conditions and allergies. The resident is concerned about the impact of damp, mould, and pests on both his own health and the health of his children.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of a leak, damp and mould.
2. Reports of pests in the communal bin room.
3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak, damp and mould.
2. No maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of pests in the communal bin room.
3. Reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

There was a delay in the landlord investigating the leak, it failed to keep adequate records and there was poor communication. While it was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to insurance claims, and its £200 compensation was reasonable for delays and poor communication, we have recommended that it contacts the resident again to address his ongoing concern that the cause of the leak was never properly determined.
The landlord’s response to the pests was reasonable and appropriate. It engaged pest control and carried out the necessary treatment and works.
There was a delay in the landlord’s complaint handling, however, it offered appropriate redress for this.

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
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss his concerns about the cause of the previous leaks and whether these have been fully resolved.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 February 2025	The resident made a complaint to the landlord through his local MP. He said: Since moving into the property in 2017, the windows have been faulty and unable to open. When he reported this, the landlord advised that the responsibility lay with him as a leaseholder. In 2019, he reported the communal walls were wet as a result from a leak. In 2020, he raised concerns about damp in his flat after paint began peeling from the walls. The landlord again informed him that he was responsible for addressing the issue. In 2024 he reported damp and mould in the property and said members of his household were ill in December 2024. Also in 2024, he reported a pest infestation in the communal bin area located next to his flat, which was also causing persistent odours. A surveyor inspected his property on 10 October 2024, however, since the inspection the landlord has not provided updates or taken further action.
7 April 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. In its response, it stated that: The cause of the damp and mould may be a leak from the flat above. A contractor had attended the property to assess for any leaks and carry out necessary works. As the resident is a leaseholder, the landlord is not responsible for remedial works relating to damp within the flat. If the resident believes the landlord is liable for damage, he may submit a liability insurance claim. It acknowledged there had been recurring issues with the windows and confirmed that repairs had been carried out to the balcony doors and windows. It confirmed that it was constructing a separate bin store and had undertaken pest‑proofing works and pest treatment. It advised that the resident could submit a personal injury claim to its insurance team in relation to his health concerns. It apologised and offered £300 compensation, broken down as follows: £250 for distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to follow up on the surveyor’s inspection in October 2024. £50 for failures in its complaint handling.
25 July 2025	The resident then contacted the Housing Ombudsman. We wrote to the landlord and requested that it escalate the complaint to stage 2 on the resident’s behalf.
11 August 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It stated that its investigation into the complaint had been carried out appropriately and that the compensation offered was fair. It reiterated that it was not responsible for repairs within the resident’s home and advised that the resident could contact its insurance team regarding any damage caused by previous leaks.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted our service because he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his complaint. He said that he wants a clear explanation of the underlying cause of the damp and mould, for the landlord to carry out all necessary remedial works, and for compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience he has experienced.

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.

What we have not investigated

The resident told us that there have been issues with leaks within his building since 2019. He said he has not been able to open his windows since he moved into his flat in 2017 and there have been issues with rats for years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred.

As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Therefore, we have investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint issues from when he reported them in 2024, as this led to the resident making his complaint.

What we have investigated

Complaint	Leak, damp and mould
Finding	Reasonable redress

On 16 September 2024, the resident reported a leak between his flat and the communal area, which had resulted in damp and mould. The landlord inspected the property on 10 October 2024. In his complaint dated 19 February 2025, the resident stated that the landlord had not provided any update on the outcome of this inspection and that the damp and mould had continued to worsen. The landlord has not provided a copy of the inspection report to us, which represents a record‑keeping failure.
The landlord carried out a further survey of the resident’s flat and the wider building on 12 May 2025. This represented an unreasonable delay, given that the resident had reported that damp and mould were affecting both his own health and that of his children. The surveyor found no active leaks but identified evidence of a historical leak, which had caused damage to areas of internal plasterboard, with mould also present. As previously stated in its stage 1 response, the landlord updated the resident on 23 June 2025 and discussed the surveyor’s findings with him.
The surveyor concluded that there were no works for the landlord to carry out and stated that, as the resident is a leaseholder, he was responsible for repairs within his home. Responsibility for repairs is determined by the terms of the resident’s lease. The landlord failed to provide an updated copy of the lease from the point the resident moved into the property in 2017. However the original lease states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the building and communal areas, while the leaseholder is responsible for all repairs within the flat. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the surveyor’s findings and to direct the resident to pursue an insurance claim.
The lease also states that the resident is responsible for the decoration of the property. Damage to the resident’s internal décor would normally be covered under the building’s insurance policy, and the resident could submit a claim directly to the buildings insurer. While the landlord advised the resident to contact its insurance team, it did not provide clear information about how to contact the insurer.
The resident could also submit a liability claim to the landlord’s insurer if he believed that delays in repairing the leak or the windows had caused damage to the interior of his property. The landlord acted appropriately by providing the resident with information on how to make such a claim in its stage 1 complaint response.
In relation to the resident’s reports that the leak, damp, and mould damaged his personal belongings, he could have made a claim under his contents insurance policy. The evidence shows that the resident did contact his insurer, although it is unclear what the outcome of that claim was. If he disagrees with his insurer’s decision, he may raise a complaint with the insurer and, if unresolved, refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service. However, the landlord is not required to intervene if the resident’s insurer declines his claim.
The resident told the landlord that the damp and mould were affecting both his own health and that of his household. The landlord provided him with details of its insurance team so that he could pursue a personal injury claim. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more appropriate for the resident to pursue any alleged injuries through a personal injury claim. The courts are best placed to consider such matters, as they can rely on independent medical evidence to assess the cause, extent, and duration of any injury. For these reasons, we have not investigated the health impacts further.
In summery it was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to make an insurance claim for the issues he had raised in relation to the damp and mould. In its complaint responses it acknowledged there were delays in it investigating the leak and its poor communication. It apologised to the resident and offered £200 compensation. The Ombudsman’s Compensation Guidance explains that where maladministration has been identified and a landlord has acknowledged its failings, compensation awards in the range of £100 to £600 are typically appropriate. The landlord’s offer falls within this range, and we are satisfied that it represents fair and reasonable redress for the distress and inconvenience caused up to the conclusion of the complaints process.
The resident raised concerns to us that the landlord never determined the cause of the leak. Although the landlord did contact the resident to go through the May 2025 survey with him, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss these concerns.

Complaint	Pests in the communal bin area
Finding	No maladministration

On 9 April 2024, the resident reported the presence of rats in the communal bin store. The landlord contacted pest control, who attended the building on 14 April 2024. Between April and December 2024, the evidence shows that the landlord arranged regular visits. During this period, pest control carried out treatment, proofing works, and an environmental clean. In December 2024, pest control recommended that the bin store be relocated.
In a letter to the resident’s MP dated 7 March 2025, the landlord confirmed that it was constructing an external bin store and expected the works to be completed within 2 weeks. However, in its complaint response dated 7 April 2025, the landlord stated that the works were still ongoing. While it is unclear when the works were completed, the landlord’s repair records show that it instructed pest control to return on 20 March 2025 to assess whether the works had been effective and if any further treatment was required.
We have not been provided with any evidence that the resident reported further pest issues after this point.
In summary, once the landlord was notified of the pest infestation, it took appropriate steps to investigate potential entry points, worked with pest control specialists, and raised the necessary repairs. It is standard practice to treat an infestation before carrying out proofing works, and we are satisfied that the landlord’s actions were reasonable and appropriate.
We recognise that the presence of pests caused the resident distress and inconvenience. However, while landlords are responsible for addressing structural defects that may allow pests to enter, pests can sometimes gain access unexpectedly. Their presence does not automatically indicate fault on the part of the landlord or the residents.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord uses a two-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It should issue a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
The resident submitted a complaint on 19 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged this on 7 March 2025 to the resident’s MP, which was outside its 5 working day timescale. However, there was no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint in writing with the resident.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 7 April 2025, which was outside its stated 10‑working‑day timescale. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to explain the delay. As a result, it failed to communicate effectively with the resident or manage his expectations.
The resident told the landlord on 27 June 2025 that he was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. The landlord replied on 30 June 2025 and advised him that he could request escalation of his complaint. Although the resident did not respond to this message, he had clearly expressed dissatisfaction, and the landlord should therefore have escalated the complaint at that point. Following contact from our service, the landlord acknowledged the escalation on 31 July 2025.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 August 2025, which was within its 20 working day timescale.
The landlord apologised for its complaint handling failures in its stage 1 response and offered £50 compensation. The Ombudsman’s Compensation Guidance indicates that, where service failure has been identified and acknowledged, compensation awards of up to £50 are typically recommended. We therefore consider the level of compensation offered to be proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s repair records were incomplete and unclear in places; for example, some repair appointments were not recorded. Landlords are expected to maintain clear and accurate records of all contacts and repairs to provide a reliable audit trail and to ensure that issues can be identified and addressed promptly.

Communication

The landlord failed to keep the resident adequately informed about the progress and status of the repairs. This resulted in the resident having to chase updates. The landlord should have clearly communicated the outcomes of its investigations and managed the resident’s expectations more effectively.