Peabody Trust (202512030)

Background

1. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat in a converted mid-terraced house. There is also a basement which the resident has access to. A Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) was completed in the summer of 2022. The resident previously complained about issues with the property, including the basement flooding under (CAS-823044-B5R1X9). This complaint was escalated to us and investigated under our reference 202127053.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s fire safety concerns.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s fire safety concerns.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s response to the resident’s fire safety concerns

6. The landlord’s communication has been poor over a prolonged period. It did not manage the resident’s expectations and missed multiple opportunities to try and address the resident’s fire safety concerns and put things right.

Landlord’s complaint handling

7. The landlord’s complaint handling was also poor. Both responses were delayed, confusing, and contained inaccurate information.

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.

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.

What we did not consider

8. The landlord:
   1. Completed a FRA in the summer of 2022 and raised repairs for a contractor to complete fire safety work in the basement.
   2. Completed drainage and structural work to the basement in December 2023 (addressed under 202127053). A surveyor inspected this work.
   3. Boarded the underside of the basement stairs with fire‑resistant plasterboard in January 2024. The contractor told the landlord that the resident said he expected the contractor to board the whole of the basement at that time.
9. The resident reported further basement flooding issues in July 2024. The landlord issued a stage 1 response (CAS-1238690-Z6Y4G3) in relation to this on 27 January 2025. It said a contractor would complete multiple repairs at the property, which included in the basement. There is no evidence this complaint was escalated to stage 2. Or that the landlord responded to the resident’s fire safety concerns as part of the complaint.
10. The evidence does not show that the resident raised the fire safety issue again until 12 July 2024, around six months after the landlord’s contractor boarded the underside of the stairs. And he did not raise a formal complaint specifically about fire safety until April 2025. We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of issues arising. This is so the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate. We have noted the previous events for context. However, we have taken 12 July 2024, when the resident raised the fire safety issue again, as the starting point for this investigation. The investigation ends on 11 February 2026, when the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response.
11. The resident told us about the impact the situation has had on his mental and physical wellbeing. We cannot identify a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he believes that the landlord’s actions or failures have affected his health.

12. The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to complete:
    1. Emergency repairs (which need a rapid response to safeguard the wellbeing of residents, the structural stability and integrity of properties and/or the health and safety of people using the affected area) in 24 hours.
    2. Routine (non-urgent) repairs in 28 calendar days.
    3. Major repairs in 60 calendar days.
13. The landlord’s fire safety policy (April 2023) says:
    1. It maintains a rolling programme of FRA’s in its flats.
    2. It reviews recommendations identified in the FRA’s.
    3. It provides and maintains fire protection equipment, such as fire detection and alarm systems, and emergency and escape lighting as appropriate.
    4. It provides hard-wired smoke detection when re-wiring domestic premises.
14. The resident emailed the landlord on 12 July 2024 to raise concerns over the lack of progress on repairs and safety upgrades. This included the fire safety ceiling in the basement and doors. This was an opportunity for the landlord to either:
    1. Inspect the property.
    2. Manage the resident’s expectations in relation to what fire safety work it would/would not do.

However, there was no evidence it did either, which was a missed opportunity to try and put things right.

15. The evidence showed the landlord tried to contact the resident in September and October 2024. Some repairs were then completed by the contractor in late January/early February 2025 which included work in the basement. However, no further fire safety work was carried out. The landlord’s repair records show a work order raised to ‘extend the domestic fire detection in the property including the basement’ on 10 February 2025. This was 7 months after the resident had raised his concerns with fire safety in the basement, which was an unreasonable delay. There was then no evidence to confirm if any action was taken in relation to this work order.
16. This resident emailed the landlord twice on 14 March 2025. After no response, he raised the formal complaint and provided an email from the Fire Brigade which said:
    1. “Fire separation between the flat and the basement should cover the whole area to restrict fire spread especially as the flat is used for sleeping accommodation.
    2. Detection should be installed for early warning of smoke/fire.”

The landlord responded promptly to the complaint and said a contractor had “completed the works which had been signed off by a surveyor.” But it was unclear whether the landlord was:

3. Referring to the drainage and structural works in the basement signed off by a surveyor in December 2023. However, if it was, the fire safety work was not completed until January 2024.
4. Referring to the repairs, including work in the basement, completed in late January/early February 2025. However, if it was, no evidence of a surveyor’s report has been provided. The resident said a surveyor had not inspected the fire safety work.

17. The landlord completed a FRA of the building communal areas on 16 April 2025 as a scheduled FRA re-inspection, which was positive. The FRA:
    1. Said the flats were not assessed as no one was in to allow access.
    2. Identified 2 medium risk actions on the ground floor it recommended the landlord act upon. These were:
       1. A new front entrance door closer.
       2. To remove keys from the break glass key box to prevent deactivation of the fire warning system and keep them in a secure location.

Given the resident had raised concerns about fire safety since at least July 2024, this was another missed opportunity for the landlord to inspect the basement and his flat.

18. The landlord emailed the resident on 23 April 2025 and said:
    1. Repairs raised for contractors were completed.
    2. It could not locate reports from a previous contractor which recommended extensive work.
    3. It did not need to provide a fire safety report. However, the resident could obtain one privately.

Given the email from the Fire Brigade, and the resident’s position that no surveyor had assessed the fire safety work. This was another missed opportunity for the landlord to arrange to either inspect the fire safety work carried out in January 2024. Or visit the property to assess whether any further fire safety work was required.

19. The resident made clear he was unhappy with the landlord’s response in an email sent on 6 May 2025. This prompted the landlord to make further internal enquires with its fire safety team, which was reasonable. Emails dated 14 May 2025 said:
    1. The “Fire Brigade confirmed the basement… does not have any [fire] detection.”
    2. The 2022 FRA had raised this action, which was sent to its electrical team, but it was closed.
    3. It had attended in April 2025, but the only actions raised relating to fire safety were:
       1. To remove keys from the break glass box.
       2. 2 servicing related actions.
    4. It should request a contractor to “inspect and install [an alarm in the basement].

It then issued the stage 1 complaint response which said it would update the resident. This showed the landlord was using its complaints process to put things right, which was positive.

20. The repair records showed the contractor attended on 29 May 2025, in line with the routine repairs policy. The contractor noted:
    1. There “was fire detection… installed in hallway, kitchen and lounge.”
    2. The basement had not been plaster-boarded.
    3. It was “unable to install Grade D [mains-powered fire] detection [in the basement] as all the lights had no permanent [electrical] supply.”
    4. It installed 2 Grade F [battery-powered smoke alarms] in the basement.

While this was a positive step, the resident contacted us the following month and said the landlord had failed to complete the full ceiling fire separation as recommended by the Fire Brigade and local authority environmental health team. There was no evidence the landlord took any further action following the contractor’s comments. This was another missed opportunity to arrange for a surveyor to either inspect the basement or arrange for another FRA of the basement area. Particularly given the concerns raised by the Fire Brigade.

21. There was no further action for 4.5 months when the resident arranged for an independent FRA, which was completed on 18 October 2025. The report:
    1. Identified the basement as a high-risk area. It said:
       1. It was not fully enclosed in fire-resisting construction.
       2. The basement should be “fully fire-rated for 30 minutes.”
    2. Said a heat alarm should be installed in the basement and linked to the communal fire alarm system.

The resident provided the independent FRA to us, but it was unclear if it was provided to the landlord. There was no evidence of further contact from the landlord until the stage 2 was issued on 11 February 2026, around 8 months after the landlord’s previous response, which was unreasonable.

22. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s fire safety concerns over the 18-month period has been poor. There were:
    1. Delays installing fire detection equipment in the basement, which was not in line with its fire safety policy.
    2. Long delays where the landlord’s communication has been poor between:
       1. 12 July 2024 (resident’s fire concerns concerns raised) and 10 February 2025 (work order raised), a period of 7 months.
       2. 10 February 2025 (work order raised) and 6 April 2025 (complaint raised), a period of 2 months.
       3. 29 May 2025 (contractor visit) and 11 February 2026 (stage 2 complaint response), a period of 8.5 months.

This totals 17.5 months, the vast majority of the period considered as part of this investigation.

3. 6 missed opportunities where the landlord could have considered sending a surveyor to inspect the fire safety work/the basement on:
   1. 12 July 2024 when the resident raised fire safety concerns.
   2. 6 April 2025 when the resident raised his complaint.
   3. 16 April 2025 when the communal FRA was completed.
   4. 14 May 2025 when the stage 1 complaint response was issued.
   5. 29 May 2025 after some additional fire safety work was completed by the contractor.
   6. 11 February 2026 when the stage 2 complaint response was issued.
4. Issues with the landlord’s record keeping which has contributed to confusion as to whether surveyors have assessed the fire safety work.

23. The resident said, “the lack of fire detection in the basement was a constant source of fear.” However, there has not actually been a fire. The landlord also acknowledged some failings and made some attempt to put things right in its complaint responses. But the offer of £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. There was therefore maladministration. The landlord should pay an additional £250 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in relation to his fire safety concerns over the 18-month period. An order has also been made to address the resident’s fire safety concerns in the property.

24. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says:
    1. Stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response sent within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days.
    2. Stage 2 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response sent within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. Any extension must be no more than 20 working days.
    3. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.
25. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint promptly the same day and said it had raised a stage 1 complaint. The resident said he wanted to “make a formal complaint.” However, the landlord emailed the following day and said it had “raised a query,” and if the resident was unhappy with the response he could escalate through the complaints procedure. This was an unreasonable approach to take and contributed to delays.
26. There was also confusion as the resident wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2, without a stage 1 response being issued. The problem stems from the stage 1 complaint issued on 27 January 2025 under reference CAS-1238690-Z6Y4G3. This complaint response did not comment on the resident’s fire safety concerns in the basement, despite the resident mentioning his concerns in his email of 12 July 2024. However, the resident was under the impression a stage 1 response had been issued.
27. It was positive the stage 1 response did take steps to put things right for the resident, however it:
    1. Was sent 25 working days after the complaint was raised, outside of policy timeframe.
    2. Had 2 complaint references on the same response. One of which was the same as the complaint acknowledgement (CAS-1365110-B2N0C3), and one which did not appear to relate to the complaint (CAS-1357442-Z5T5S0).
    3. Was confusing, as it said the resident’s complaint was not upheld. But then:
       1. Offered compensation to the resident.
       2. Identified learning in relation to repair timeframes, and complaint handling timeframes.
    4. Said work had been completed in the basement in November 2023 which were post inspected. But it failed to mention further fire safety work completed in January 2024 or properly investigate.
28. The stage 2 response:
    1. Was sent 8.5 months after the resident requested to escalate to stage 2. This was significantly over the expected timescale for a stage 2 response.
    2. Said it upheld the findings in stage 1 which suggested there were no failings, but then said it upheld the complaint. This was confusing.
    3. Failed to properly investigate as it said a smoke alarm was installed in the basement as of 9 July 2025 as part of an annual service check. However, the evidence suggests this was completed on 29 May 2025 as part of work raised to a contractor following the stage 1 complaint.
    4. Was not clear in the compensation offer as to whether it was increasing compensation for complaint handling.
    5. Said it would update the resident in relation to the updated FRA along with a commitment and timetable for completing all necessary works. However, it was unclear if the resident has been contacted.
29. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling has been poor. We acknowledge the landlord offered £150 for its delayed complaint handling in the stage 1. It also offered £200 for time and trouble in its stage 2. However, the complaint response was delayed by months, affecting timely resolution of the dispute. And there were significant errors in the complaint response, resulting in misleading advice, unaddressed complaint, or confusion on the part of the resident. There was therefore maladministration. An order of a further £100 in addition to the £150 already offered is made in line with our compensation guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord’s repair records could have been clearer in this case. It was unclear what happened on several visits. The landlord could consider explaining exactly what happened at each job, particularly given there are many different contractors used. This might help to inform its complaints team when responding to complaints.

Communication

31. As mentioned in the report and acknowledged by the landlord. The communication with the resident has been poor. The landlord could have been much clearer by outlining all the fire safety works it was intending to do at the property. Then providing a timescale of when it intended to do the repairs. This may have mitigated the resident’s evident disappointment with its handling of the situation and better managed his expectations.