Peabody Trust (202445902)

Decision
Case ID	202445902
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	31 March 2026

Background

1. Between March and November 2024 the resident complained about numerous repairs outstanding at the property. The landlord combined 4 complaints covering 7 separate aspects from the resident into one complaint response. The resident lives in a shared block of flats with communal areas. The resident lives with health conditions which the landlord is aware of.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:

a.             The front path outside the property being cracked, uneven and becoming waterlogged.

b.             Issues with the security of the communal door.

c.             Issues with the front door to the flat.

d.             Issues with the back door to the flat.

e.             Subsidence causing damage to the property.

f.               Upgrades being needed to the bathroom and kitchen.

g.             Damage to the oven caused by a contractor.

h.             The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We made findings of maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:

a.             The front path outside the property being cracked, uneven and becoming waterlogged.

b.             Issues with the security of the communal door.

c.             Issues with the front door to the flat.

d.             Issues with the back door to the flat.

e.             Subsidence causing damage to the property.

4. We made findings of service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:

a.             Upgrades being needed to the bathroom and kitchen.

b.             Damage to the oven caused by a contractor.

c.             The associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. In its complaint response the landlord agreed to inspect the communal path. However it did not address safety concerns. It failed to acknowledge the resident’s vulnerabilities or recognise the extent of its delay in responding.
7. The landlord’s complaint response recognised a short delay in fixing the communal door. However it did not recognise the extent of its delays, the time and trouble caused to the resident or the likely distress caused by its failure to maintain the building’s security.
8. The landlord failed to address the complaint about the front door. It did not give follow up information after the doorframe was measured or address the resident’s fire safety concerns. These failings caused likely distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period.
9. In its final response the landlord confirmed that it made attempts to engage with the resident about the back door. However it did not recognise its significant delay in responding between April 2024 and January 2025. It said it had replaced the door in April 2024 but was unable to verify this when the resident escalated the complaint.
10. The landlord delayed unreasonably in providing a response to the resident about subsidence causing damage to the property. Its complaint response acknowledged communication failures and the overall delay, however the compensation offered was not proportionate to the extent of the delay and impact on the resident.
11. Between November 2024 and February 2025 the resident was left without clarity on plans for upgrading her bathroom and kitchen. In its complaint response the landlord explained its renewals process. It agreed to check their condition in 2026. However it failed to acknowledge the resident’s report of personal injury or the impact of its delay in responding.
12. The landlord delayed unreasonably in providing a response to the resident about her broken oven door. Its complaint responses did not address this delay or acknowledge the impact it had on the resident.
13. The landlord significantly exceeded its complaint response times. It recognised the impact of its delays and offered appropriate compensation. However it failed to address all aspects of the complaint, gave the resident inaccurate information and did not provide timescales for the completion of works.

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 28 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,450 made up as follows: £200 for the impact of failing to repair the communal path.   £350 for the impact of failing to properly respond to the reported issues with the communal door.   £150 for the impact of failing to properly respond to the resident’s reported issues with the front door to the flat.   £150 for the impact of failing to properly respond to the resident’s reported issues with the back door to the flat.   £400 for the impact of failing to properly respond to the resident’s concerns about subsidence.   £100 for the impact of failing to communicate effectively about the bathroom and kitchen upgrades.   £100 for the impact of the delay in responding to the resident’s reports of damage to the oven door and failing to acknowledge her reported injury.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 28 April 2026
3	Review outstanding repairs If it has not done so already, the landlord must ensure that all previously agreed outstanding work has been completed or is scheduled for completion. These works include repairs to the communal front path, the communal door, and the back door (in line with the council’s recommendations of 10 May 2024). For outstanding work, the landlord must identify the outstanding repairs and set out the planned completion dates for each item. For work already completed, the landlord must provide documentary evidence of the completed repairs to us by the due date. The landlord must provide us with documentary evidence by the due date confirming that this information has been given to the resident.	No later than 28 April 2026
4	Inspection order to address suspected subsidence 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 person. 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 structural elements of the property and produces a written report with photographs.   The survey report must set out:   Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of any displacement, if appropriate. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue, if appropriate. The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord’s final response agreed to complete a stock condition survey of the kitchen and bathroom in 2026. If it has not done so already the landlord should write to the resident with an agreed time for this survey to take place. This is to ensure that the resident has clarity and certainty about plans for the property.
If it has not done so already, the landlord should provide the resident with details of its liability insurer for her reported personal injury.
If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident £535 it offered for its complaint handling. Our finding of service failure for the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the basis that this amount has been paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 13 March 2024 and 27 November 2024	The resident made 4 stage 1 complaints about to the landlord about 7 separate issues relating to the property’s condition and works needed.
21 February 2025	The landlord sent one stage 1 response to cover all 7 issues. It agreed to complete some works, such as a condition survey of the bathroom and an assessment of the exterior of the building.
9 March 2025	The resident escalated all aspects of the complaint as she felt that none were resolved. She said the landlord’s failings over 4 years had caused her stress. She said her physical and mental health had been affected.
8 April 2025	The landlord sent its final complaint response. It addressed each issue individually and confirmed that its contractors would contact the resident to coordinate and complete the outstanding repairs. It offered £500 in compensation for delays in complaint handling and £100 in compensation for communication failures relating to subsidence.
25 April 2025	The resident made a new stage 1 complaint about the front door.
14 May 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. The resident requested to escalate the complaint on the same day. We did not have a copy of these communications so could not detail their content.
16 October 2025	The landlord sent its final response. It concluded that it would provide a like for like replacement of the front door. It explained that changing the door to one without the top glazing panel would be considered a home improvement rather than a repair and therefore would be the resident’s responsibility. The landlord offered £70 in compensation for poor communication relating to the front door repair and £35 for the delays in issuing its complaint response.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses. She said that several aspects of the complaint remained unresolved.

 

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 front path outside the property being cracked, uneven and becoming waterlogged.
Finding	Maladministration

14. The landlord said the resident first reported issues with the front path in June 2023, including a safety concern. The resident later complained about the condition of the path in July 2024. In its stage 1 response the landlord said that it completed the repair in September 2023 and understood the issue to have been resolved. As there were no further reports after September 2023 it was reasonable that the landlord took no additional action until the resident’s complaint in July 2024.
15. When the resident reported the issue in July 2024 she said that the path was cracked and uneven. The landlord did not respond until its stage 1 response in February 2025. The landlord knew of the earlier safety concerns and that the resident was recovering from a stroke. It should have taken prompt action to investigate and, if it identified repairs, acted within its 28 day repair timescale. In line with the repair policy, the repair should have been carried out by early August 2024.
16. In its final response in April 2025 the landlord accepted that it did not respond promptly to the resident’s July 2024 report. It acknowledged the distress and inconvenience this caused. It said a surveyor would inspect the path and complete any recommended work. However it did not address the extent of the delay, the lack of communication over several months or the impact on the resident, particularly given its knowledge of her circumstances.
17. We made a finding of maladministration because there was the landlord’s failure had an adverse effect on the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 in compensation. The amount recognises the prolonged delay by the landlord between July 2024 and April 2025 in responding to the resident’s report. It also recognises that, due to the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord’s failings were likely to have had a more significant effect on her than on a resident without such vulnerabilities. It is not clear if the repair work remains outstanding and we made an additional order to address this.

Complaint	Issues with the security of the communal door.
Finding	Maladministration

18. The resident said that the faulty communal door led to her experiencing antisocial behaviour (ASB.) The reports of ASB are being considered separately (202445908) and do not form part of this investigation.
19. The resident told the landlord on 8 February 2024 that the communal front door did not lock automatically. The landlord completed a repair on 15 April 2024, exceeding its routine repair timescale by 39 days.
20. After the landlord completed the repair, at the resident’s request the local council inspected the property against the housing health and safety rating scheme (HHSRS). The council said that the communal front door needed a self-closing device to maintain building security and told the landlord this on 10 May 2024. The council added that the issues identified required immediate attention to ensure resident safety. The landlord agreed to complete the recommended work. The repair remained outstanding 82 days later when the landlord asked the contractor for an update. It is not clear if a further repair was completed. In its complaint response the landlord acknowledged only an 8-day delay.
21. On 20 January 2025 the resident reported again that the communal door was not secure. The landlord attended, agreed, and completed a repair on 14 February 2025. The resident said this repair was not suitable. In its final response, the landlord said it had completed the repair but it did not address the resident’s concern that the latest repair was unsuitable. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to had addressed the resident’s concerns about the lock.
22. The landlord did not act with urgency after being told by the council that the building was not secure and that resident safety was a concern. The resident lived on the ground floor and said she was recovering from a stroke. In its complaint responses, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s vulnerabilities, the extent of the delays or the impact of the ongoing security risk. We therefore made a finding of maladministration.
23. We have ordered the landlord to address the resident’s concerns and ensure that the communal door lock aligns with the council’s recommendation. We have also ordered it to pay the resident £350 in compensation. This sum reflects the delay, the time and trouble taken by the resident, the distress caused by the lack of building security and the additional impact considering the resident’s circumstances.

Complaint	Issues with the front door to the resident’s flat.
Finding	Maladministration

24. On 28 March 2024 the resident told the landlord that she needed a new front door because the current one let in light and affected her sleep. She added that the fire service had advised her that it needed replacing. The landlord attempted to contact the resident on 1 May 2024 to arrange an appointment, exceeding the 28 day timeframe for a routine repair.
25. A contractor measured the doorframe on 27 June 2024. This delay was due to resident availability. After taking measurements the landlord did not provide further information. The resident had to follow up on 31 July 2024 and after no clarification from the landlord made a stage 1 complaint on 27 November 2024.
26. The landlord did not address this aspect of the complaint and the resident raised it again in April 2025. The landlord issued a final response on 16 October 2025 explaining that it would not install a door without a window as this would be classed as a home improvement rather than a repair. It offered the resident a like-for-like replacement, which was reasonable.
27. The landlord offered £70 in compensation for the delays and poor communication. While it was positive that the landlord acknowledged its errors, the amount did not fairly reflect the impact of a 7-month wait for a decision about the door and the resident having to repeatedly prompt the landlord for updates. As a result, we found maladministration and ordered the landlord to increase the compensation to £150. This is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where the landlord has attempted to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the impact of the issues we identified in our investigation.
28. The revised amount reflects the cumulative impact of the delay, the inconvenience caused by the lack of communication and the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the issue.

Complaint	Issues with the back door to the resident’s flat.
Finding	Maladministration

29. On 19 March 2024 the resident reported that the back door to her flat was not secure. The landlord attempted to contact her 4 working days later but was unable to reach her. When the resident called again on 15 April 2024 the landlord recorded internally that the door was fit for purpose and secure, however there is no evidence that it communicated this to the resident. While based on its comment the landlord might reasonably have believed that there was no security risk, it was unreasonable that it did not provide the resident with a response.
30. The resident made a stage 1 complaint in July 2024 requesting a new back door, noting that her neighbour had recently received one. There is no evidence that the resident reported a security risk at this stage. The landlord did not respond until January 2025, at which point it made reasonable attempts to contact the resident to progress the issue.
31. In its final complaint response on 8 April 2025 the landlord said it had been unable to progress matters because the resident did not respond to its contact attempts. The landlord agreed to carry out an inspection. While this was positive it did not acknowledge the prolonged delay in dealing with this matter or the likely frustration this caused the resident. We found maladministration in line with our remedies guidance for the impact of failings which the landlord has failed to acknowledge or put right. We ordered the landlord to pay £150. This sum reflects the 6 month period during which communication was poor which caused likely frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
32. The landlord’s final response confirmed that it would inspect the back door. It is unclear if any work has since taken place. We have made a further order for the landlord to ensure it is satisfied that it has addressed the issues with the back door and communicated necessary information to the resident.

Complaint	Reports of subsidence causing damage to the property.
Finding	Maladministration

33. The resident reported concerns about the structure of the building on 8 August 2023. The resident followed up on 19 September, 25 September and 3 October 2023. It is not disputed that a structural engineer assessed the property in October 2023. There is no evidence of an update to the resident after this assessment and the resident made a stage 1 complaint on 13 March 2024.
34. The council completed a HHSRS inspection and informed the landlord on 10 May 2024 that it had identified potential subsidence. The council recommended an assessment by a structural engineer to ensure the stability of the building. It asked the landlord to take prompt action to ensure the safety and wellbeing of residents. The landlord agreed to act on the council’s recommendations but there is no evidence that it took further steps or updated the resident on its plans.
35. Considering the council’s assessment and the recommendation for timely follow up, it would have been reasonable for the resident to believe that there was a risk to the property. The resident requested updates on 6 July and 10 and 19 December 2024 before receiving a response from the landlord. The landlord’s failure to address these concerns caused the resident likely distress and uncertainty about possible structural issues. It required the resident to spend time and effort repeatedly chasing updates for over a year.
36. In its stage 1 complaint response in February 2025, the landlord referred to an earlier inspection it had carried out in October 2023 which had not identified subsidence. It also stated that major works with no immediate safety risk could take a long time. This response lacked accountability. It failed to recognise its communication failings, the council’s more recent findings or any impact the resulting uncertainty was likely to have had on the resident over a prolonged period.
37. In its final response the landlord said that a technical inspection in March 2025 identified some necessary external works including repointing and replacing render. The inspection report did not comment on the property’s stability or possible causes of damage. While we recognise that a surveyor completed this inspection, it is not evident that the landlord satisfied itself that the property was structurally sound.
38. In addition, the landlord did not address the council’s findings or the extended period during which no progress was made. Its response apologised that the resident was given conflicting information and offered £100 compensation. This was not enough to constitute reasonable redress. Moreover, the structural stability of the property remains in question.
39. We made a finding of maladministration and an order for the landlord to increase that compensation to £400 . This is consistent with our remedies guidance for the impact of failings which the landlord has failed to acknowledge or put right. The sum reflects the amount of time taken to address the issue, the time the resident spent chasing updates and the ongoing uncertainty and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to robustly address the subsidence concerns.
40. We have also ordered the landlord to carry out an inspection of the property to confirm structural stability. This follows the council’s recommendation which the landlord had previously agreed to follow.

Complaint	Upgrades being needed to the bathroom and kitchen.
Finding	Service failure

41. In November 2024 the resident said she expected the kitchen and bathroom to be upgraded because of the age of the property and because a neighbour had received similar upgrades. She said that the landlord had previously told her that the bathroom and kitchen would be renewed. The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that kitchen and bathroom renewals were based on condition rather than age and it would arrange a condition survey of the property. Its final response noted that a letter it sent in 2023 advised that the kitchen and bathroom were due to be replaced in 2026. It concluded that it would review the condition of the rooms in 2026.
42. The landlord acknowledged that in 2023 it had agreed to replace the bathroom and kitchen. While its final response confirmed that it would only review the condition of the rooms, it did not acknowledge its previous miscommunication or offer an apology.
43. The resident said in her escalation request that she was injured when she removed loose kitchen cupboard doors and said she was recovering from a stroke. We cannot draw conclusions on causation or liability for injury. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer. We have considered only how the landlord responded to the resident’s report of injury. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s reported injury or consider a referral to its insurance team in line with its compensation policy.
44. We have made a finding of service failure and an order for the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. It reflects the inconvenience caused to the resident by giving conflicting information, failing to acknowledge her reported injury and the delay in responding to the resident, who had to wait 5 months to understand the landlord’s position.
45. We have made recommendations for the landlord to ensure the resident has the details of its liability insurer and to write to the resident with its plans for the agreed 2026 condition surveys.

Complaint	Damage to the resident’s oven caused by a contractor.
Finding	Service failure

46. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will not consider compensation for damage covered under contents insurance and if it is claimed that the landlord is responsible for any damage, it will investigate this before involving insurers. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had advised the resident of this in December 2024. It added that, as the resident had fixed the oven door herself, there was no evidence to establish liability. As such it could not consider offering compensation. This advice was appropriate and in line with its policy.
47. The resident did however report the damage to the oven door on 3 September 2024 and that she needed support as she had recently had a stroke. The landlord said it responded in December 2024. While the delay was unlikely to have changed the overall outcome for the resident and the landlord’s policies do not set a response timescale, the resident said she needed additional support and did not have access to one of her main cooking facilities. The delay had an impact on the resident, who had to wait before deciding to fix the oven door herself. This was not addressed in the complaint responses.
48. We have made a finding of service failure and an order for the landlord to pay £100 in compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which may have caused a delay in getting matters resolved. This sum also reflects the additional impact considering the resident’s circumstances. The landlord’s failing in this case would have had a more severe impact on the resident, compared to other residents in the same position without her vulnerability.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

49. The resident asked to add several items to her complaint in the escalation request. These included noise from the upstairs neighbour, carpet fitting in the hallway and reimbursement for electricity costs. The landlord said that stage 2 response would only include issues raised at stage 1. As these additional items were separate and were not linked to the stage 1 complaint aspects it was reasonable that the landlord did not include them.
50. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires the landlord to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt. It should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
51. Between March and November 2024 the resident submitted 4 stage 1 complaints. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to these resulting in the resident seeking our assistance. We intervened and instructed the landlord to respond to the resident by 21 February 2025. The landlord followed this instruction. The resident escalated the complaint and the landlord then responded within the required timeframes. The landlord recognised its failure to respond and the inconvenience caused to the resident. It offered £500 in compensation.
52. In the final response the landlord said that, as per its responsive repairs policy, it could not offer compensation for issues relating to communal areas. The landlord added that it had said this in its stage 1 response. There is no evidence of this being addressed at stage 1 nor is it evident that the repairs policy says this. It would also be unfair not to consider compensation for the impact of failing to respond to repeated contact attempts from the resident, regardless of the topic. The resident was misinformed and prevented from being offered appropriate compensation.
53. The landlord advised that as a resolution it would arrange for its contractors to contact the resident to progress the repairs. No date was given, leaving the resident with uncertainty at the end of the complaints process.
54. The landlord did not address the resident’s complaint about the front door because it said it had previously considered this under its complaints process. We reviewed the stage 2 response the landlord was referencing and it did not address the front door. The resident put in a new complaint about the front door in April 2025. She escalated this complaint in May 2025 and the landlord responded on 25 October 2025. This delay affected the resident who did not receive a final response about the front door until 11 months after she asked to raise a formal complaint. In its final response the landlord apologised for the delay and offered £35 in compensation.
55. Overall we consider the landlord’s offer of £535 compensation appropriately reflected the impact of its complaint handling failings and we have not ordered any additional compensation. However the landlord gave inaccurate information and left the resident without a clear timeline for repairs. This likely caused the resident uncertainty and ongoing frustration. The landlord also delayed unreasonably in responding to the first 4 complaints, apologised and said it had taken organisational learning from this. It then repeated the same failing when the resident made a new complaint in April 2024. The landlord did not show that it learned from the earlier delays or improved its service. As such we made a finding of service failure and have made an order for the landlord to apologise for these errors

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

56. The landlord gave inconsistent information about completion of the back door repair and could not confirm whether the communal path repair was completed in full in September 2023. The landlord should keep clear and accurate repair records so it can satisfy itself and the resident that it has met repair obligations.

Communication

57. The landlord consistently failed to maintain communication with the resident and provide relevant updates. The landlord should ensure that residents are kept informed about planned works and expected delays.

Other

58. The resident said she had to follow up directly with contractors about repairs to the communal path. The landlord should engage with contractors on behalf of the resident and follow up as necessary.