Peabody Trust (202421302)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421302

Peabody Trust

22 October 2025

Our approach

Our approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). We consider the evidence and look to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to us, and we have carefully considered it. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

This complaint is about how the landlord handled repairs at the resident’s property, including related damp and mould.
We have also considered how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bed flat. The resident lives in the property with her children. She has reported a number of health issues, and lives with PTSD.
The resident made a complaint about how the landlord handled repairs and damp and mould in her property on 11 April 2024. She said she wanted repairs completed, for the landlord to move her to another property, and compensation for damage to her property as well as her health and wellbeing.
She sent a further complaint to the landlord’s Chief Executive on 12 August 2024. She said she was unhappy with repairs, damp and mould, and rodents in the property. She said the property was not habitable, and that the condition of the property had harmed her health. She said she wanted £40,000 compensation from the landlord.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 September 2024. It said:
1. It had raised a works order on 15 November 2023, and its contractors went to the property on 4 January 2024. They found water ingress to the hallway cupboard and basement, filled gaps either side of the external steps with cement, and completed a mould wash. It then raised further works orders to resolve damp and mould.
2. It attended on 16 April 2024 to complete a mould wash, but this did not go ahead because of the nature of the repairs needed. A surveyor inspected the property and recommended works, but the landlord did not take any further action as the surveyor had left the business.
3. It accepted there had been a severe breakdown in communication, a lack of due diligence and accountability regarding the urgency of the works, and a complete disregard for potential vulnerabilities and the impact this caused.
4. It apologised, said it had provided feedback to the relevant teams, and offered £450 compensation. This was £300 for its handling of the repairs, and £150 for poor complaint handling.
The resident escalated her complaint on 3 October 2024. She said:
1. She made a complaint in November 2023, not April 2024, as the landlord had stated.
2. The landlord only dealt with her original complaint, and not her second complaint.
3. The landlord had not yet completed any repairs at the property. She disputed there had been any mould wash.
4. She did not accept the £450 compensation offered. She said she wanted £40,000 compensation for the impact on her health, emotional distress, breach of tenant rights, reputational damage, and damage to her personal belongings.
The resident escalated her complaint again on 29 January and 26 February 2025. She said the landlord had not responded to her escalation request, or completed any repairs.
On 9 April 2025, following the landlord’s acknowledgement of her escalation request, the resident said she wanted to make a further complaint about its complaint handling. She also said she wanted it to include her belief that it had breached various laws when responding at stage 2.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 17 April 2025. It said:
1. It had completed works to the front of the property and the stairwell. It still needed to do internal works and repointing.
2. Its contractors tried to complete internal works, and said that the resident did not provide access. The resident had told it on 10 April 2025 that this was not the case, and she stopped them doing the works because she did not feel they would be doing the correct works. It apologised for any miscommunication or misunderstanding.
3. It had booked a new surveyor for 11 April 2025. It had to do a new survey as the original surveyor had left the business, and it was a year since the original survey. After the inspection, it would provide full details of the repairs.
4. It referred her to her contents insurer for mould-damaged items, and also gave contact details for its insurance team.
5. It apologised for its lack of communication and the delays in resolving the damp and mould. It offered £1,726.20 compensation. This was broken down as follows:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings around the repairs.
  2. £350 for time and trouble around its complaint handling.
  3. £876.20 for a 10% rent refund. This was to cover April 2024 (when she made the complaint) up to the stage 2 response.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, so she referred her complaint to us. She said the stage 2 response was factually inaccurate, it had failed to fully address her complaint, and she felt the compensation was inadequate. She said she wanted increased compensation, and a permanent move to a 3-bed home.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The rules which govern our Service say we may not consider complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident has raised a number of concerns in her complaint. Some of those complaints, such as pest issues, the standard of repairs to the stairway, and the landlord’s actions since the stage 2 response, have not completed the landlord’s complaints process. So we cannot consider them as part of this investigation.
The Scheme also says we may not investigate complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a complaint within a reasonable time (12 months). The resident said that issues with the property have been ongoing for 18 years. But in line with the Scheme, we will only be investigating events from 11 April 2023 (12 months prior to the resident’s complaint) up to the point of the landlord’s stage 2 response.
The resident said she believes the property is unfit for human habitation, that the landlord is in breach of multiple pieces of legislation, and it has been negligent. She also said the condition of the property has damaged her health, and that her belongings have been damaged by mould. She believes the landlord should pay her £40,000 compensation.
It is not within our remit to determine legal matters such as habitability, negligence, breach of contract, personal injury, or liability. These would require binding legal determinations from a court. We also do not determine disputed damage to belongings in the way a court or insurer might. Any compensation we consider would be for general distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings.

Repairs, including damp and mould

The landlord accepts that it did not handle the resident’s reports of damp and mould appropriately. So we have considered whether it did enough to put things right.
The resident reported 2 leaks on or around 11 April 2023. The first was a leak from the boiler in the hallway, and the second was into her daughter’s bedroom. The landlord said it tried to attend on 11 April 2023, but the resident did not give it access for the repair. The resident chased up the repair on 12, 18, and 24 April 2023, and told the landlord she had been home on 11 April 2023. The evidence therefore does not show there were access issues.
The landlord attended on 4 May 2023 and stopped the leak. But part of the bedroom ceiling had come down, so it needed follow-on repairs. Its records say it repaired the ceiling on 5 June 2023. This was 3 weeks to complete an emergency repair and just under 8 weeks to complete the routine repair. This was not in line with its repairs policy, which says it must complete emergency make safe repairs in 4 hours, and routine repairs in 28 days.
The resident said she had solicitors contacting the landlord about repairs during this time, and the landlord did not respond. The landlord’s records are silent on this. Her solicitors sent a letter of claim on 30 August 2023, and had a surveyor inspect the property on 11 September 2023. The surveyor said:
1. The toilet skirting board and flooring were damaged from a leak and needed to be repaired. There was damp in the wall under the bathroom window, and the window frame had started to rot.
2. The walls in the hallway were severely damaged and a cupboard needed to be completely rebuilt. This was caused by damp.
3. There was penetrating damp in 1 of the bedrooms, which was caused by both a previous leak and water ingress from an external wall. There were high levels of dampness in the chimney breast, which needed further investigation.
4. Another bedroom had staining from a previous leak, and needed redecoration.
5. The damp and mould was a category 1 hazard, and it would take 6 weeks to complete the necessary repairs.
We have seen no evidence that the resident or her solicitors provided the survey report to her landlord at that time. However, the landlord’s repair logs show that she reported damp and mould on 15 November 2023. She also told the landlord the damp and mould had been ongoing for 2 years.
The landlord said it inspected on 4 January 2024, filled gaps in the external stairs with cement, and completed a mould wash. It has not provided any evidence to support this. Its repair records also say the inspection was on 5 February 2024, it found damp in the property, and it only raised the works order for the stairs in March 2024. The landlord’s records are incomplete and contradictory, which has made it difficult to determine what action it took and when. It took no further action after its inspection until it arranged a surveyor inspection for 16 April 2024. This was an unreasonable delay.
At the inspection on 16 April 2024, the surveyor reported the following:
1. The asphalt stairway to the property entrance was damaged. This was allowing water into the property and causing damp.
2. Damp in the bathroom was caused by an overflow pipe attached to the brickwork.
3. Extensive works were needed, and the property was not fit for habitation.
A surveyor inspection is a reasonable step in resolving damp and mould. A landlord can only determine the cause of damp and mould, and therefore complete a lasting repair, by carrying out an appropriate inspection. This would include taking damp meter readings, and getting advice from an appropriately qualified professional on the likely cause of the mould.
In this case, the surveyor has not produced a full survey report setting out the various investigations they completed. There is also no evidence of any damp meter readings, or of any inspection of a number of the rooms. So the landlord has not shown it completed a reasonable investigation into the damp and mould at that time.
Following its limited inspection in April 2024, the landlord then failed to take any further action for a significant length of time. It sent the complaint to its surveying team on 8 August 2024, and on 18 August 2024 said it needed to complete a mould wash. This was despite it having previously declined to complete a mould wash as the works needed were extensive, demonstrating a lack of appropriate oversight or joined-up approach to repairs. There were then further delays as 2 different teams repeatedly passed the repairs between them for 2 months, with each refusing to take ownership of the issue and insisting the repairs were not their team’s responsibility.
On 5 September 2024, the landlord asked the resident to confirm whether it had completed any works since April 2024. It should not have needed the resident to tell it whether or not it had completed repairs. The need to do so in this case demonstrates poor record keeping and a lack of oversight of its contractors and repairs process.
The landlord tried to book an inspection on 25 September 2024. However, this was in response to a letter of claim, rather than any proactive attempt to resolve the issues. It is unreasonable that it took the threat of legal action for the landlord to try to complete a further inspection.
The landlord has suggested the resident was not allowing access at this time. This conclusion is not supported by the evidence provided. The resident sent the landlord a copy of her surveyor’s report on 3 October 2024, and said she was happy for the works to start once there was a resolution to her complaint.
The landlord then raised a works order for repairs on 8 October 2024. It has provided no evidence that it communicated with the resident about the works. Its repair logs said it completed works to the asphalt on 22 October 2024. However, the records also show it then raised a new works order for repairs to the asphalt on 13 November 2024, which it completed on 28 November 2024.
The resident told us on 3 December 2024 that contractors had recently gone to her home to start works. She said they completed works to the stairway, but she did not allow them to complete the internal works. She said this was because she was awaiting information from the landlord. It is therefore apparent that the landlord completed works to the stairway towards the end of November 2024. The remaining works (internal repairs and repairs to the external brickwork) were still outstanding as of the stage 2 response in April 2025.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord promised the resident it would give her full details of the works, and that it would monitor the repairs through to completion. However, based on the information provided, the remaining repairs are still outstanding 6 months after the stage 2 response.
The landlord took some reasonable first steps in relation to repairs. It resolved 2 leaks in the property, repaired the damaged ceiling, and arranged inspections for the damp and mould. It has also completed some repairs for the damp and mould. But it has not shown that it completed a reasonable investigation into the cause of the damp and mould. And its actions were unreasonably and avoidably delayed.
The landlord has accepted there were significant delays in completing the repairs. It said it took no further action after the April 2024 survey because the surveyor who inspected left the business. It accepted in its stage 1 response that there had been a severe breakdown in communication, a lack of due diligence and accountability regarding the urgency of the works, and a complete disregard for potential vulnerabilities and the impact this caused.
However, in its stage 2 response, it said there had been access issues, placing some of the fault for the delays with the resident. The resident disputes ever refusing access.
We have seen no evidence to suggest there were any access issues prior to 28 November 2024. There have been some access issues from 28 November 2024. The resident confirmed to us on 3 December 2024 that she had refused access for the internal works. She also said she had received several calls from the landlord about the internal works. So it is apparent that the landlord was trying to progress the works at that time.
The evidence also shows that while the resident was chasing up the works on 26 February 2025, she attached conditions to allowing access (such as the stage 2 response, the landlord accepting there had been 18 years of issues, and compensation).
Residents are required to allow access for repairs under the terms of their tenancy agreement. And a landlord can only complete repairs when it is given access to do so, unless it gets a court order to allow it to force entry. So a landlord is not generally responsible for any delays once a resident refuses access.
However, the access issues in this case were at least in part caused by the landlord’s actions. The landlord has provided no evidence that it notified the resident of any appointments in advance, or that it gave her any information about the nature of the works (such as what the contractors would be doing, when, and how long the works would take).
The resident said she did not allow access for the internal works as she did not believe that the contractors would carry out the correct works, and she was waiting for information from the landlord. The repair records show that the resident did provide access for internal repairs unrelated to the damp and mould on 11 March 2025. And while there were initial issues with booking in the new survey, the resident allowed access for this once the landlord explained why it was needed. So, had the landlord communicated appropriately about the repairs, it’s possible that any issues with access could have been avoided.
The landlord’s failings in this case can be summarised as follows:
1. A failure to complete repairs in line with its repairs policy or standard industry practice.
2. A failure to properly investigate the causes of damp and mould in the property, or to consider vulnerabilities.
3. A failure to arrange appropriate handovers when staff left the business, or to effectively monitor the progress of repairs.
4. A failure to keep adequate records, which contributed to the above failings.
5. Poor communication (both internal and external) which caused further delays and access issues. It is also apparent that the poor communication caused the landlord and tenant relationship to break down in this case.
The landlord accepted that there were significant failings in how it handled the repairs and damp and mould. It apologised, offered the resident compensation (£500 for distress and inconvenience plus 10% of her rent from April 2024 to April 2025), and said it would provide her with a scope of works once it had the survey report. It also said it would monitor the repairs through to completion.
It is promising that the landlord recognised failings in this case, and took steps to put things right. However, the compensation offered is insufficient for the impact on the resident, and has been calculated from the date of the complaint, not from the date of its failings. It has also provided no evidence of giving the resident full details of the works (a copy of the works order is insufficient), or of completing the works to date.
Its records show it closed the works order for repairs in September 2025 because the case was sent to its disrepair team, and a disrepair surveyor was needed. But there is no evidence of an active disrepair case. This has left the works in limbo. Given the absence of evidence of any ongoing plan of action for the repairs, the landlord’s role in the access issues, and the insufficient compensation, the landlord has not done enough to put things right. It has also not shown that it learned from this complaint. Given the level of its failings and the impact on the resident, we find there has been severe maladministration. We have therefore considered what the landlord needs to do to put things right.
The resident wants the landlord to move her to another property. We have seen no evidence which suggests the necessary repairs to the property cannot be completed within a reasonable time, and we cannot order a landlord to permanently rehouse a resident. As such, this is not something we will be ordering the landlord to do.
The landlord must issue a written apology for the failings in this case. It must also arrange for a surveyor to complete a full building survey within 2 weeks of the date of this determination. As there have been conflicting reports from different surveyors, the landlord must instruct an independent third-party surveyor rather than an internal surveyor. The surveyor must inspect the internal and external areas of the property and provide a full survey report on the condition of the property, the cause of the damp and mould, and a full list of works needed to resolve all outstanding repair issues.
Following the inspection, the landlord must give the resident the survey results within 4 weeks of the date of this report. It must also give the resident a full schedule of works, including details of when it plans to start the works, how long it expects the works to take, and whether or not she can remain in the property during the works (based on advice from the independent surveyor). If it concludes she can remain in the property, it must also set out the steps it will take to protect the health and safety of the resident and her family while works are ongoing. It must then start the works within 8 weeks of the date of this determination.
With regard to the compensation, the resident does not believe the landlord’s offer is sufficient because:
1. She had to pay for dry cleaning and replace clothing due to mould.
2. She believed she had been exposed to unsanitary and hazardous conditions since 2007, and this caused damage to hers and her family’s health. She also said this caused anxiety and depression, as well as harming her children’s development.
3. She said there had been a continuous decline in living conditions, which she believed breached her tenant rights.
4. She felt comments about her in the landlord’s complaint logs harmed her reputation.
5. She could not foster children due to damp and mould in the property, which lost her potential income.
As set out above, the majority of these issues do not fall within the remit of this Service, and would be matters for either the landlord’s liability insurer or the courts. We can only consider compensation for distress and inconvenience, and loss of use or enjoyment of the property.
With regard to loss of use or enjoyment of the property, the landlord has offered compensation based on 10% of the rent from April 2024 (when the resident made a complaint) up to its stage 2 response. It was appropriate to calculate the compensation at 10% of the total rent. This was in line with its compensation policy, and this Service’s approach to compensation for loss of enjoyment.
However, it should have calculated the compensation from the earliest evidenced loss of use or enjoyment (within the 12 months leading up to the complaint), rather than from the date of the complaint. Based on the evidence provided, the landlord must pay the resident £1,363.82 compensation for loss of use. This is calculated as follows:
1. The resident’s rent was £156.48 per week in 2023-4, £168.53 per week in 2024-5, and £173.08 per week in 2025-6.
2. The earliest evidence of partial loss of use and enjoyment is in the September 2023 survey. This was completed after the resident’s solicitors sent a letter before action in August 2023.
3. By the time of the stage 2 response, the repair issues in the September 2023 survey had been outstanding for 83 weeks.
4. The total compensation for loss of use or enjoyment up to the stage 2 response should be £1,363.82.
In addition to the compensation for loss of use or enjoyment, we have also considered compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The delays in this case have been significant. By the time of the stage 2 response, the resident had been living with damp and mould for well over a year. She has also provided evidence that she was unable to foster children as a direct result of the damp and mould, and that she believed the damp and mould was harming her children’s health.
We cannot consider compensation for damage to health or wellbeing, as that would be a matter for a court or liability insurer. But living in a property you believe is harming your children’s health would inevitably cause a significant level of distress and inconvenience. As would being prevented from fostering children. The distress and inconvenience was also compounded by the landlord’s poor communication.
Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, we find the landlord must pay the resident £1,300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in this case. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for serious failings which have a severe long-term impact on a resident. This is inclusive of the £500 offered in the stage 2 response.
The landlord has not shown it learned from this complaint, and its failings indicate wider issues within the organisation. It must therefore also complete a senior management review of this complaint to determine how it will prevent a repeat of its failings in future. An order to that effect is set out below.

Complaint handling

The resident said she raised a complaint in November 2023. The evidence provided shows the resident reported damp and mould in November 2023, and this was a service request rather than a complaint. The evidence we have seen shows the resident made a complaint on 11 April 2024. In the absence of any evidence of a complaint in November 2023, we will only assess the landlord’s complaint handling from 11 April 2024 onwards.
Under the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 22 April 2024, and issued its stage 1 response on 3 September 2024. Its acknowledgement was slightly delayed, and its stage 1 response was significantly delayed (more than 4 months after the complaint). The resident chased a response throughout that time, and the landlord told her the complaint handler would be in touch. However, the original case handler never contacted the resident. The landlord only responded after it assigned the complaint to a different staff member in August 2024, following a further complaint from the resident.
The resident then escalated her complaint on 3 October 2024, and again on 29 January 2025. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 8 April 2025, and issued a stage 2 response on 17 April 2025. This was more than 6 months after the escalation request. This was a significant and unreasonable delay, for which the landlord has provided no reasonable explanation. It also indicates the landlord did not learn from its failings at stage 1.
In addition to being significantly delayed, the landlord’s complaint responses were also inaccurate. For example, the landlord said the resident made a complaint on 22 April 2024, despite its own records showing that was not the case. Its responses also do not look sufficiently into the causes of the failings, indicating an inadequate complaint investigation.
The resident also made a complaint on 12 August 2024. The Code says that when a resident makes a further complaint during the complaint investigation, the landlord should incorporate it into the stage 1 response. This is unless the stage 1 response has already been issued, or doing so would unreasonably delay the stage 1 response.
The August 2024 complaint at times repeated the existing complaint. However, the resident also added some additional concerns that were not in her original complaint. As the landlord had not yet completed a stage 1 investigation, it should have either considered this further complaint alongside the original complaint, or logged a new stage 1 complaint. In this case, it did neither. It referred the complaint to its legal team, then failed to respond to any of the further complaint points. This was unreasonable.
Overall, the landlord’s responses to the first complaint were significantly and unreasonably delayed at all stages. There were inaccuracies in its responses, and the responses do not indicate an adequate level of investigation into the complaint. It then failed to respond to the second complaint at all.
The landlord offered £350 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble as a result of its failings. Given the significant delays in its response, the amount of times the resident had to chase a response, and the landlord’s multiple broken promises of contact from the case handler, we do not consider this sufficient. The landlord has also not acknowledged all of its complaint handling failings in this case, and it has yet to reply to all parts of the resident’s complaint. It has not done enough to put things right.
Given the number and level of complaint handling failings, we find there has been severe maladministration in its complaint handling. We have therefore considered what else the landlord needs to do to put things right.
In addition to an apology for its failings, the landlord must issue a stage 1 response to the resident’s August 2024 complaint within 2 weeks of this determination. We understand the resident is unhappy that the Chief Executive did not respond to the complaint. There is no expectation or requirement under either the Code or the landlord’s complaints process for the Chief Executive to personally respond to complaints. So the landlord can issue the stage 1 response in line with its existing processes to comply with this order.
The landlord must also pay the resident £450 compensation for time and trouble. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but have no permanent impact. This is inclusive of the £350 offered as part of the stage 2 response.
The complaint handling in this case is also indicative of wider systemic issues. The landlord must therefore complete a senior management review of this case to determine how it will prevent its failings being repeated in future.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been severe maladministration with regard to:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs at the resident’s property, including related damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

By 5 November 2025 the landlord must:
1. Issue a stage 1 response to the resident’s August 2024 complaint.
2. Arrange for an appropriately qualified independent surveyor to carry out a full building survey of the property. This must include both the internal and external areas of the property, and any adjacent communal areas. The landlord must ensure that the surveyor provides a full survey report. The report must include the following:
  1. Whether the property is fit for human habitation, and whether there are any hazards. If there are hazards, the surveyor must specify if they are category 1 or category 2 hazards.
  2. Details of the inspections the surveyor completed in each area of the property.
  3. Details of any repair issues or damp and mould in the property, and the likely cause.
  4. A full scope of works to provide a lasting and effective resolution of any repair issues or damp and mould identified.
  5. The likely timescales to complete the works.
  6. Whether the resident can remain in the property for the works, or would need to be moved to temporary alternative accommodation.
By 19 November 2025 the landlord must:
1. Issue a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
2. Write to the resident to confirm:
  1. The results of the survey.
  2. What works it intends to carry out at the property, when it intends to start those works, and how long it expects the works to take.
  3. Whether the resident needs to be moved for the duration of the works, or can remain in the property. If the resident can remain in the property, it must set out what steps it will take to protect the health and safety of the resident and her children during the works.
3. Pay the resident £3,113.82 compensation. This is inclusive of the compensation offered as part of its stage 2 response, and is broken down as follows:
  1. £1,363.82 for partial loss of use and enjoyment of the property.
  2. £1,300 for distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of repairs, damp and mould.
  3. £450 for time and trouble caused by its poor complaint handling.
By 17 December 2025 the landlord must:
1. Start the works identified by the independent surveyor.
2. Complete a senior management review of this complaint to determine how it will prevent a recurrence of the failings identified in this report in future. The landlord must provide us with a copy of its review and resulting action plan.
The landlord must provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders by the deadlines set out above.