Peabody Trust (202346670)

Decision
Case ID	202346670
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	22 April 2026

Background

1. The property is a maisonette in a block. The landlord is aware the resident has a medical condition which affects his breathing. At the time of the complaints the resident was living in the property with his wife, adult child and elderly parent. He reported problems with the heating in November 2023. The landlord attended multiple times in January 2024 to repair this.
2. In December 2023 the resident reported damp and mould caused by a possible leak from an internal pipe behind a wall. The landlord resolved the leak in February 2024 and started remedial works the following month. This included removing the kitchen units. In April 2024 the landlord said it would make a subsistence payment of £2,800 to help with food costs during the period of the works as the kitchen had been removed. A few days later, it temporarily moved the resident until the works were completed in May 2024.

What the complaint is about

3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Requests for heating repairs.
   3. Requests for financial support because his kitchen was unusable.
   4. Associated formal complaints.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Requests for heating repairs.
   2. Requests for financial support because his kitchen was unusable.
   3. Associated formal complaints. 
6. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord acknowledged delays and communication failures in its handling of the damp and mould. It completed works, apologised and paid compensation, but this was not quite enough due to a miscalculation, and was only offered after our intervention.
8. The landlord acknowledged delays and communication failures in its handling of the heating repairs. While it took action to repair the heating and offer redress, this was not sufficient considering the resident’s circumstances and the impact of the failures.
9. There was a 2-month delay in the landlord paying a food allowance for the period the kitchen was unusable. This resulted in the resident repeatedly chasing for payment. The landlord did not acknowledge this failure or offer redress to put things right.
10. There were delays and communication failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. It acknowledged some failures, apologised and offered compensation, but this was insufficient considering the number and extent of the failures and the impact on the resident.

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 visit the resident to apologise in-person for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff (director or above) 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 20 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £2,112, made up as follows: £338.70 for loss of use of the kitchen and living rooms for 5 weeks between March and April 2024 (inclusive of the £293.55 already offered). The £203.07 already offered for loss of use of enjoyment of the property for 21 weeks between November 2023 and April 2024. The £110.23 already offered for reimbursement of electricity charges. The £500 already offered for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused as a result of the failures in its handling of his reports of damp and mould. The £200 already offered for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused as a result of the failures in its handling of his requests for heating repairs. £210 for the 70 day period he was without heating to help towards the cost of temporary heating in winter months. £125 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused as a result of the failures in its handling of his requests for financial support because his kitchen was unusable. £425 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused as a result of the failures in its handling of his 3 complaints (inclusive of the £225 already offered). The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 20 May 2026

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
First complaint
17 December 2023	The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of heating repairs. He said he had reported problems the previous month but it had not attended. He said the lack of heating was negatively impacting his family’s health.
22 January 2024	The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged delays and communication failures in its handling of the heating repairs. It apologised and offered £250 compensation (£200 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the repairs and £50 for complaint handling). It suggested visiting the following day to complete further repairs.
23 January 2024	The resident confirmed further works had been completed that day but the heating was still not working. He said the issues had been ongoing for several months and he felt let down by the landlord. The landlord did not escalate the complaint or respond at stage 2.
Second complaint
December 2023	The resident complained that he had not received any contact about his damp and mould report made the previous week. He said he had breathing problems and there was an elderly person living in the property. He was worried about the impact on their health. The landlord acknowledged this as a service recovery the following day and said it would complete any outstanding repairs.
3 March 2024	The resident asked to escalate the complaint as there had been no progress in completing works to address the damp and mould.
16 May 2024	The landlord’s stage 1 response confirmed a leak had been resolved and remedial repairs completed, apart from minor snagging works. It acknowledged the works had taken longer than expected and said this was because the repair was complex and involved multiple departments. It apologised and offered £403.07 compensation (£200 for time and trouble and £203.07 for loss of enjoyment of the property for 21 weeks between November 2023 and April 2024, when the resident was temporarily moved, calculated at 5% of the weekly rent).
12 June 2024	The resident escalated the complaint via us as he was dissatisfied with the works, communication and amount of compensation offered.
12 August 2024	The landlord’s stage 2 response said the stage 1 outcome, including the compensation offer, was fair and reasonable. It acknowledged delays in its handling of the complaint, apologised and offered £150 compensation for this.
5 March 2025	The landlord offered increased compensation of £903.78 (£110.23 for reimbursement of electricity charges during the period of the works, £293.55 for loss of use of the kitchen and living room for one month based on 35% of the rent and £500 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble).
Third complaint
March 2024	On 8 March 2024 the resident raised concerns about a call that day regarding food vouchers he had been offered because his kitchen was unusable. He said the landlord had told him it would contact him the following week but he needed the vouchers that day. The landlord raised this as a service recovery and replied 2 working days later. It said the food voucher request had been raised to the incorrect team. It confirmed it had followed up and sent the food voucher the same day. On 18 March 2024 the resident said he was dissatisfied with the response and asked to escalate this to a formal complaint. A week later he said the property was not habitable as there were no kitchen facilities and other rooms were unusable.
23 May 2024	The landlord’s stage 1 response said there had been communication failures, which meant staff were not aware the resident did not have cooking facilities. It confirmed it had made a subsistence payment to cover the period he had no cooking facilities and temporarily moved him until the works were completed. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered £25 compensation for this.
26 June 2024	The resident escalated the complaint as he disagreed with the response. He said he had not received the subsistence payment and wanted additional compensation for loss of use of the property. The landlord did not escalate the complaint or respond at stage 2.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident is dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered. He has asked for this to be increased to reflect the loss of use of the property from November 2023 to May 2024, impact on health and physical and emotional harm caused to his family.

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	Damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

11. The landlord must address damp and mould in line with section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
12. The resident reported damp and mould from a possible leak on 22 December 2023. He told the landlord there were vulnerable people in the property and said he was told to expect a call or a visit as he was in a priority group. This was appropriate considering the household vulnerabilities.
13. The resident made a complaint 4 days later as he had not been contacted. As these were non-working days, it was reasonable that the landlord had not contacted him. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident an estimated timescale in which it would contact him so he was aware of when this was likely to happen. This was particularly important as it was the Christmas and New Year period, when the landlord’s services were likely to be reduced and the response may have taken longer than at other times of the year. 
14. The resident has said he previously reported to the landlord that he could hear water running behind the walls in the summer of 2023, but it did not do anything about this. We have not seen any evidence of this and so cannot comment further. Our assessment has considered the landlord’s actions following the resident’s report on 22 December 2023.
15. The landlord attended on 8 January 2024 and identified a leak, which was repaired 25 days later, on 2 February 2024. It said in the stage 1 response the repair took longer than expected as it was complex and the works involved multiple departments. This was reasonable as the source of the leak was a service pipe in a property above, located in the wall. Further, there were multiple departments and contractors involved as the property had an extended warranty. Considering this, the timescale for the leak repair was reasonable.
16. During the period the leak was being investigated, the landlord arranged to do a mould wash in the property. This was appropriate to slow the spread of the mould, particularly considering the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord arranged this for late January 2024 but it did not go ahead. The resident said this was because the operatives who attended said the source of the leak had not been found. Regardless of this, the landlord should have proceeded with the mould wash. Its failure to do so meant the resident and his family had to live in the property with worsening damp and mould.
17. The landlord inspected on 15 February 2024 and identified the remedial works needed. It started these 3 weeks later and noted them as completed on 21 May 2024. The landlord’s repairs policy said it would complete programmed repairs in 60 days. These were complex repairs that needed additional time and included damp works. The landlord completed the works in 75 days, over the committed timescale for programmed repairs. Considering the scope of works completed this timescale was reasonable and, as the resident had been temporarily moved out of the property in April 2024, this delay did not adversely affect him.
18. The inspection report of 15 February 2024 noted the works required were removal and renewal of plasterboard, plastering and redecoration. However, the day the works started, the resident told the landlord this included removal of kitchen units, internal walls and flooring and the cooker and hot water being turned off. It is not clear if the scope of works changed when the works started or the inspection report did not fully record the extent of the works. Either way, this was a failure as the landlord should have identified and noted all required works from the outset.
19. The landlord’s decant policy at the time said it would consider a temporary emergency move in situations where the health and safety of the household would be at risk while works were completed. On the day the works started, the resident asked the landlord for a temporary move. Considering the scope of the works and the vulnerabilities of the household, the landlord should have considered this. There is no evidence it did and it was only after the resident made his third complaint that it did so and agreed a temporary move. This was almost a month after the works had started and the resident had told the landlord multiple times the condition of the property was negatively affecting his family’s health.
20. For complex repairs it is important that landlords keep residents updated on progress. Updates should be sent proactively and not rely on the resident chasing for them. There were failures in the landlord’s communication and it did not provide consistent proactive updates. This meant the resident had to chase for updates on several occasions. This was frustrating for him and particularly upsetting as he told the landlord the condition of the property was negatively affecting the family’s health.
21. The landlord acknowledged the kitchen and living room were unusable from when the works started on 7 March 2024, until the resident was temporarily moved out on 11 April 2024. Based on the scope of the works and the photos we have seen, this was a reasonable conclusion. The landlord offered £293.55 compensation for loss of use of these rooms for one month, based on 35% of the rent amount. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy at the time which said it would pay compensation for the period rooms were unusable, calculated at 25% of the rent for the kitchen and 10% for the living room.
22. The period the resident was living in the property while these rooms were unusable was 5 weeks, but the landlord only offered compensation for one month. This was insufficient. The monthly rent was £838.72, which equates to £193.55 per week. Therefore, the landlord should have offered £338.70 as this is 35% of the weekly rent for 5 weeks. We order the landlord to pay this amount to the resident.
23. The resident has asked for a rent refund for the period from November 2023 to May 2024, when the works were completed. We will not order a rent refund but can consider whether compensation for loss of use of the property is required. To do this, we need evidence that all or part of the property was unusable. In this case, the landlord acknowledged loss of use of several rooms from March to April 2024 and offered compensation for this. However, there is no evidence it concluded any part of the property was fully unusable prior to this and we cannot retrospectively determine that they were.
24. Considering there was an active leak for an extended period and this caused damp and mould, it is reasonable that the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property was affected. The landlord acknowledged this in the stage 1 response. It offered £203.07 compensation for this calculated at 5% of the weekly rent for the 21 week period between November 2023 and April 2024, when he moved out. This was reasonable and we order the landlord to pay this amount to the resident, if not already done so.
25. The landlord’s decant policy says residents are responsible for paying utility costs while they are temporarily rehoused. Despite this, the landlord agreed to reimburse the resident £110.23 for electricity costs during the period he was temporarily moved. While not obligated to do so, this was reasonable and showed the landlord wanted to resolve the matter and put things right for the resident. We order the landlord to pay the resident this amount, if not already done so.
26. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter, apologised and offered compensation. The resident told the landlord he wanted apologies and compensation payments from individual staff members who had been involved in the failures. The landlord is not required to do this and, similarly, we will not order this.
27. The landlord apologised in writing, which was appropriate. However, considering his requests for more personal apologies, it could have considered meeting with him to offer an in-person apology. The landlord was not obligated to do this but it could have considered it to help put things right for the resident. We order it to visit the resident at home to offer an in-person apology. This must be done by a senior member of landlord staff (director level or above).
28. In addition to the compensation for loss of use of the property and reimbursement of utility costs, the landlord offered £500 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. The landlord’s compensation policy at the time said it would pay between £401 and £600 for failures that caused extensive disruption. This was where there had been a high impact and high effort to resolve over an extended time and communication failures. Considering the failures identified and the impact on the resident, the landlord’s offer was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy. We order it to pay this amount to the resident, if not already done so.
29. The landlord offered a total of £1,106.85 compensation. However, this was insufficient as it incorrectly calculated the amount for loss of use of the kitchen and living room for the 5 week period before the resident was temporarily moved. As the redress offered was not quite enough and the final offer was not made until March 2025, after notification of our investigation, a finding of service failure is appropriate. 
30. The resident has asked for compensation for the impact on his and his family’s health and well-being. We will not order compensation for this as any impact on health must be assessed via a personal injury insurance claim. The resident can contact the landlord’s insurance department to make a claim. We have considered the general distress and inconvenience he experienced as a result of the landlord’s failures and whether the compensation offered was fair and reasonable.

Complaint	Heating repairs
Finding	Maladministration

31. The resident’s first complaint about the landlord’s handling of his requests for heating repairs was only responded to at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaint process. We can only investigate complaints that have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and we are satisfied that the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
32. In this case, the resident expressed ongoing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the matter the day after the stage 1 response was sent. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said a complaint was defined as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord. It confirmed the word complaint did not need to be used for it to be treated as such.
33. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time said if all or part of the complaint was not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 it must be progressed to stage 2. The resident was not required to specifically ask for the complaint to be escalated for this to be done.
34. As the resident expressed ongoing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the heating repairs, it should have escalated the complaint and responded at stage 2. Not doing so was a complaint–handling failure and in contravention of the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy. While this complaint did not complete the landlord’s internal process, as there was a complaint–handling failure, it is within our jurisdiction to investigate.
35. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairs to heating installations, including the central heating. The landlord’s repairs policy at the time said emergency repairs were ones that needed a rapid response to safeguard the wellbeing of residents and should be attended within 4 hours, or 2 hours where there was a vulnerability.
36. In this case, considering the time of year and the vulnerabilities of the household, the landlord should have treated the repair as an emergency and attended within 2 hours. The resident has said the landlord told him it would attend in this timescale, but it failed to do so and first attended 51 days later, on 12 January 2024. This was significantly over the committed timescale set out in the landlord’s repairs policy and only happened after the resident had chased on at least 3 occasions, including raising a formal complaint.
37. When the resident first reported the repair on 22 November 2023 the landlord raised 2 works orders. However, neither resulted in action being taken. The landlord said this was because one job was raised to the incorrect contractor and the other did not contain the resident’s full address, so the contractor could not attend. Both were avoidable errors and contributed to the overall delay in the heating being repaired.
38. After the resident made his complaint, the landlord attended multiple times in January 2024 to investigate and complete repairs. This included replacing several parts at different visits. The resident asked why the landlord did not replace all parts at the same time. While frustrating for the resident, it is reasonable that it can take the landlord several visits to identify and resolve heating problems. It was logical that the landlord replaced parts individually so it could fully diagnose the issue and ensure this was resolved, without completing unnecessary works.
39. From the evidence provided it is not clear the exact date the heating was repaired, but this was around the end of January 2024. This means the resident was living without heating for around 2 months during the winter. This was an unreasonable delay, particularly as the landlord knew he was vulnerable because of medical conditions and had an elderly person living in the property. He told the landlord the lack of heating was negatively affecting their health but, despite this, there is no evidence the landlord considered or offered temporary heating. This was a failure that left the resident feeling the landlord did not care about his family.
40. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter, apologised, offered £200 compensation and advised of a further appointment to repair the heating. While the heating was not repaired at the time the response was sent, it was repaired shortly after. The landlord’s compensation policy said for failures that caused moderate disruption it would pay between £201 and £400. Considering the circumstances of the case, the £200 offered was reasonable for the distress and inconvenience caused. We order the landlord to pay this amount to the resident, if not already done so.
41. However, the landlord’s compensation policy at the time said it would pay £3 per day for no heating in winter months after the first 24 hours to help towards the cost of temporary heating. The resident was without heating for around 70 days after the first 24 hours, which means it should also have offered a further £210. Its failure to do so means it did not offer reasonable redress for the failures. We order the landlord to pay the resident £210 compensation for loss of heating for 70 days during winter months.
42. We acknowledge the resident has said the lack of heating negatively impacted the household’s health. We cannot determine there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and their ill-health as this is more appropriately considered as part of a personal injury insurance claim. We have considered the general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of the landlord’s failures and whether the compensation offered was reasonable for this.
43. The resident has reported further incidents of heating loss since his complaint. We have not assessed the landlord’s handling of these incidents as they were not included in the formal complaint. He can raise a further complaint with the landlord for these incidents to be assessed. Once this has completed the landlord’s internal process, he can refer it to us for investigation if he remains dissatisfied.

Complaint	Requests for financial support because his kitchen was unusable
Finding	Maladministration

44. The resident’s third complaint was only responded to at stage 1 of the landlord’s internal process. After the stage 1 response was sent, he asked on at least 2 occasions to escalate the complaint, but the landlord did not do so. This was a complaint-handling failure. Therefore, the complaint falls within our jurisdiction to investigate.
45. The landlord’s decant policy says it will pay a food allowance of £20 per adult per day when residents do not have access to a kitchen. As the kitchen units were removed and the cooker turned off when the works started, it was appropriate that it paid this allowance. The landlord said the works started on 7 March 2024 and the resident was temporarily moved out on 11 April 2024. This means the family were living in the property for 35 days without cooking facilities. As there were 4 adults in the property, the landlord agreed to pay £2,800, in line with its decant policy.
46. The resident has disputed the start date of the works and said they started on 4 March 2024, meaning an additional food allowance payment should be made. We have seen no evidence the works started on this date. In an email from the resident to the landlord of 7 March 2024, he said the works had started that day, including removal of his kitchen units. Therefore, we are satisfied the works begun on the 7 March 2024 and the food allowance payment amount was correct. 
47. The landlord agreed to pay the food allowance in April 2024. However, it did not pay this until more than 2 months later in June 2024. This was only after the resident had spent considerable time and effort chasing it up, including raising a formal complaint. This delay was unreasonable as the purpose of the payment was to assist with additional costs the resident had already incurred. He said the delay caused him financial difficulties.
48. The resident raised concerns about staff conduct during a call on 8 March 2024. We will not investigate the actual reports, as this is for the landlord to do. Instead, we have considered whether the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns.
49. The landlord spoke to the staff member and gave feedback to the resident as part of the stage 1 response. This was reasonable and showed it had taken his concerns seriously. The resident disputed the information given and said he was dissatisfied with the response. While the landlord did not escalate the complaint, it replied and told him there was no evidence to confirm what was said during the call so could not comment further. While frustrating for the resident, this response was reasonable.
50. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £125 compensation. This is in line with our compensation guidance for maladministration failures that adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

51. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would log stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. It would respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the escalation request being received.
52. The landlord logged the first complaint on 2 January 2024, 9 working days after the complaint was raised, and over its committed timescale. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day and said it would respond within 10 working days. A week later it sent a second acknowledgement and said it would respond within 10 working days. This was confusing for the resident and resulted in him spending time and effort contacting the landlord to clarify when the response deadline was.
53. The landlord sent the stage 1 response 14 working days after it logged the complaint, over the policy timescale. The landlord acknowledged this delay, apologised and offered £50 compensation. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy at the time, which said it would offer up to £50 for minor complaint-handling failures that had a low impact. This was reasonable considering the delay was short and so a minor inconvenience.
54. The landlord did not escalate the first complaint or respond at stage 2, despite the resident expressing ongoing dissatisfaction with the heating repairs. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to review the complaint and potentially put things right for the resident sooner.
55. The landlord initially dealt with the resident’s second and third complaints as service recoveries. Its service recovery process at the time said if a resident experienced a service issue, staff were encouraged to resolve it straight away with an apology and by taking the necessary action. If the issue could not be resolved immediately, or if further enquiries were needed, the matter may be escalated and handled as a formal complaint.
56. Considering the concerns raised by the resident as part of the second and third complaints, it was inappropriate for the landlord to deal with them as service recoveries. The complaints required further investigation and could not be put right straight away. Based on this, the landlord should have dealt with both complaints at stage 1 of its formal process from the outset. Its failure to do so contributed to the overall delay in the complaints being investigated and responded to via its formal process.
57. The resident asked to escalate his second complaint to stage 1 on 3 March 2024. The landlord confirmed the following day it had escalated the complaint. However, we have not seen any evidence that it progressed the investigation at that time. It was 2 months later, on 14 May 2025, after contact from us that the landlord progressed the complaint. The landlord sent the response in 51 working days, significantly over the 10 working day policy timescale.
58. The landlord sent the stage 2 response to the second complaint in 44 working days, more than double the 20 working day committed timescale. The landlord offered £150 compensation for the failures in its handling of the second complaint. Its compensation policy at the time said it would pay up to £150 for moderate failures, where it failed to follow its complaints policy resulting in inconvenience and effort to progress. As the resident had to contact us to get the complaint progressed and there was an overall delay of around 8 weeks, this was reasonable.
59. The resident asked to escalate his third complaint to stage 1 on 18 March 2024 and the landlord sent the response 45 working days later. This was significantly over the 10 working day committed response time and only after the resident chased this up at least once. The landlord offered £25 compensation at stage 1. This was unreasonable considering the extent of the delay.
60. The resident specifically asked to escalate the third complaint to stage 2 on at least 2 occasions. Despite this, the landlord did not escalate the complaint or respond at stage 2. This means the complaint did not complete the landlord’s internal process and was another missed opportunity for the landlord to put things right for the resident sooner.
61. There were failures in the landlord’s handling of all 3 complaints. It acknowledged some failures and offered a total of £225 compensation. While positive, the redress is not sufficient considering the number and extent of the failures and the impact on the resident. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £425 compensation made up of £125 for its handling of the first complaint, £150 for the second complaint and £150 for the third complaint (inclusive of the amounts already offered).

Learning

62. The landlord should ensure heating repairs are raised and attended promptly, in line with its repair timescales.
63. The landlord should consider any vulnerabilities in the household when dealing with damp, mould and heating loss. It should take interim actions to remove mould and offer temporary heating, particularly in winter months. It should consider whether a temporary move is required at the earliest opportunity.
64. The landlord should ensure it identifies and records the full extent of works required at the outset. This will allow it to consider whether a temporary move is required prior to the works starting.
65. The landlord should pay food allowance promptly.
66. The landlord should pay compensation for loss of use of all or parts of properties, where it deems these as unusable. It should calculate the amount owing for the period the areas were unusable.
67. The landlord should escalate complaints where the resident requests this and/ or the resident expresses ongoing dissatisfaction.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

68. There were missing records in the landlord’s evidence submission that the resident has been able to provide. This means we have been able to fully investigate the matter. The landlord should keep detailed records so it can account for its actions and decisions to residents and us, where required. The landlord’s failure to do that in this case has not impacted the investigation but going forward it must ensure full records are kept and submitted to us for investigation.

Communication

69. There were communication failures in the landlord’s handling of all issues. It should keep residents informed and provide proactive updates. It should not rely on resident’s chasing to send updates.