Peabody Trust (202412317)

Decision
Case ID	202412317
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	7 May 2026

Background

The resident reported cracking to the living room ceiling and said it was a recurring issue. The landlord repaired the damage but the resident sought a permanent solution and compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

a) Reports of repairs to the living room ceiling.

b) The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found there was:
Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the ceiling repairs.
Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs to the living room ceiling

The landlord completed responsive repairs to the living room ceiling but failed to complete a reasonable assessment to find the underlying issue. Further work is needed to find a lasting resolution for the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord kept the resident updated throughout the complaint process and managed its contact well It recognised its delay and paid an proportionate amount of compensation.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 04 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £280 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the ceiling repairs, as offered during the complaint process. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date, if not paid already. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 04 June 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified surveyor. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the living room ceiling of the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: The most likely cause of the cracking and damage to the ceiling Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works and actions to achieve a lasting and effective repair and resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) The timescales to commence and complete the work	No later than 04 June 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord, if not paid already, pays the resident the £10 compensation offered within the complaint response relating to the delayed stage 2 response.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 October 2023	The resident raised the complaint to report cracking in the living room ceiling. This was a reoccurrence of previously repaired cracks and the resident said the issue had been occurring repeatedly since 2018. The resident asked for compensation and a permanent solution instead of a temporary fix.
3 November 2023	The landlord acknowledged the complaint and provided it’s stage 1 response on the same day. This said: The landlord was sorry the cracks had reappeared following repair works on 14 August 2023. It had considered all repair requests from the previous 6 months and had not considered repairs raised about other areas of the property, as these were being dealt with separately. The landlord confirmed the last report of cracking in the living room ceiling before this complaint was 22 November 2022, with the repair being completed on 7 February 2023. A new appointment would be arranged with PGM, the landlord’s contractor, to assess the cracks and make good the repairs. PGM were to contact the resident directly.
20 November 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 and confirmed a full response would be given within 15 working days.
13 December 2023	The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued 2 working days later than promised due to case handler absence. Resident was kept updated and there was no impact from the delay. The response said: A PGM supervisor had attended the property and assessed the cracking. Their professional opinion was that the cracks were minor/hairline and there were no structural concerns or hazards. The landlord does not consider there to be a causal link between the current and previous repair issues. PGM have attended each time and repaired and made good the cracking issue. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for a missed appointment on 28 November 2023. Feedback had already been given to PGM about management of appointments and £10 compensation would be paid in line with the landlord’s compensation and remedies policy. Total compensation offer of £40 (£10 for missed appointment, £20 for failing to arrange a new appointment date and £10 for the delayed stage 2 response).
8 April 2024	The resident chased the landlord for an update following previous emails where she had repeated her concerns about the safety of the property and disputed the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
11 April 2024	The landlord offered the resident an improved compensation offer of £290 (£10 for complaint handling, £30 for the missed appointment and £250 for time, trouble and inconvenience). The email also reiterated the opinion of the PGM supervisor that the cracking was being caused by ‘heavy movements’ from the upstairs flat and that there were no structural concerns.
14 April 2024	The resident responded with a repeated request for a lasting solution to the cracking issue and said that any compensation offer must comply with the landlord’s policies.
16 May 2024	The resident chased the landlord again as her emails to the case handler were being returned as undelivered.
23 May 2024	The landlord responded to the resident, apologised and explained the case handler no longer worked for the landlord. It told the resident that she had exhausted its ICP and to refer the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman if she wanted to take it further.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident escalated the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service. The resident requested compensation for the landlord’s handling of the issues, as well as an inspection into the safety of the property and a permanent solution to the cracking. If no permanent solution can be offered, the resident requested to be moved to a new property.

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 handling of repairs to the living room ceiling.
Finding	Service failure

The resident said the cracking in the living room ceiling has been a recurring issue since 2018. However, the evidence provided to us only covers events from January 2023 onwards. We have not seen evidence to show the resident completed the landlord’s internal complaint process for any previous occurrences of cracks in the living room ceiling.
To ensure fairness to both parties, and based on the available evidence, we have limited our investigation to the events since August 2023, which is when the landlord had last repaired the cracking before the complaint.
The resident reported a recurrence of the cracks in the living room ceiling. Within its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the worry the cracking had caused and told the resident it had referred the job to PGM for follow up.
When completing the repairs to the ceiling in November 2023, PGM told the landlord that there was no structural issue and the cracking was minor/hairline in nature. The PGM supervisor also commented that there were no signs of subsistence within the building or thermal expansion.
During the period in review, the landlord arranged repair work and made good on those repairs in line with its repairs policy, which says all non-urgent repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days. There was one missed appointment on 28 November 2023. The landlord apologised and paid compensation in line with its own policy for this and the delay it caused in rearranging the works afterwards.
The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible to repairs to the ceilings and plasterwork but not responsible for minor cracking. This means the landlord has taken reasonable steps to address the repairs needed to the ceiling over and above what was required by the agreed terms with the resident.
Following its stage 2 response and further contact with the resident, the landlord offered compensation of £280. This was made up of, £30 for the missed appointment and £250 for time, trouble and inconvenience to the resident. This level of compensation, was reasonable in response to the complaint.
By acting to repair the cracks each time they reappear, the landlord demonstrated fair application of its repairs policy. However, PGM feedback to the landlord said that the cracks will reappear again in future unless the underlying cause is not dealt with.
Since referring the case to this service, the resident told us that the cracking has continued to reappear and the landlord has taken no meaningful steps to help prevent them from reappearing.
The cracking continues to cause inconvenience and distress to the resident. The landlord has not shared evidence to demonstrate what actions it has taken to mitigate and prevent the recurring issue. It should consider the cost to itself in having to repeatedly repair the same issue and compare that with investigating, locating and dealing with the underlying cause. The landlord should also consider the inconvenience and impact on the resident each time repairs are completed.
Both the landlord and the resident would benefit from a lasting solution. The resident has commented that she is concerned about the structural safety of the building. An order to complete a survey and assessment of the ceiling has been made and the landlord will need to confirm what actions are to be taken and a timeframe for completion. An apology will also be ordered, as the landlord has failed to resolve the underlying issue over an unreasonably long time.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord uses a 2-stage complaints process, which complies with the Complaint Handling Code.
The resident raised the complaint on 30 October 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this and provided a stage 1 response on 3 November 2023. This response apologised for the reappearance of the cracks in the ceiling and confirmed PGM had been instructed to arrange a new repairs appointment with the resident directly.
The resident and landlord corresponded throughout November 2023 and disagreed over the landlord’s decision not to consider historic reports of cracking to the same ceiling within the stage 1 response.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 and this was acknowledged on 20 November 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 13 December 2023.
The stage 2 response was delayed slightly due to a member of staff being absent unexpectedly. However, the resident was kept updated and this demonstrates good communication from the landlord.
The stage 2 response acknowledged a missed appointment and apologised to the resident. It offered £10 compensation for this failing which was reasonable and in line with its own policy.
After the stage 2 response, the resident continued to request further action from the landlord and had to chase responses and updates several times. The landlord made an improved compensation offer on 11 April 2024, which maintained the previous stage 2 compensation but included a significant new offer to acknowledge the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience.

Learning

Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance highlights the benefit to landlord’s in trusting and acting on the professional judgement of its contractors. PGM told the landlord that the cracking to the living room ceiling is likely to reoccur but no comment was made of this assessment by the landlord during the complaint process and no evidence shared to show what steps were taken to address this and prevent further inconvenience to the resident. There is an opportunity here for the landlord to learn from this complaint and take more proactive steps to mitigate recurring repair work when reported.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s records were detailed enough to allow for the investigation into complaint handling. The landlord was able to provide job reports and repair logs that supported the investigation and our finding.

Communication

The landlord maintained good communication with the resident during the complaint process. However, the resident felt motivated to chase updates from the landlord after the stage 2 response because the case handler continued to correspond and then stopped without explanation. The landlord was then delayed in responding and explaining the delay to the resident, so expectations could have been managed better.