Peabody Trust (202405902)

Decision
Case ID	202405902
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 March 2026

Background

In January 2023 the resident’s property was affected by a leak from the property above. The leak damaged the kitchen and bathroom, and led to mould growth under the wallpaper, inside the kitchen cupboards, and in the bathroom.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
We will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord did not fully address the damp and mould issues during its internal complaint procedure. The repairs were later completed, but this occurred over 2 years after the leak was first reported. The landlord offered the resident compensation which reflected the significant time taken to resolve the complaint, but this offer was made around 18 months after the final complaint response. The landlord’s poor handling of the repairs meant it missed the opportunity to resolve the complaint at a much earlier stage, and this prolonged the resident’s distress.
During its internal complaint procedure the landlord did not identify occasions where its complaint handling had fallen short. The landlord did not fully address its complaint handling failures in subsequent reviews of its handling of the complaint, suggesting cyclical failings occurred. In August 2025 it recognised areas for improvement and offered additional compensation. While this was positive, the landlord missed an opportunity to provide appropriate redress at an earlier stage.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 to reflect the distress associated with the landlord’s poor communication around the damp and mould repairs after issuing its stage 2 response. 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 20 April 2026
2	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 20 April 2026
3	Case review The landlord must conduct a senior manager case review relating to how it handled the damp and mould repairs, and in how it handled the resident’s complaint. The landlord is to produce a written report outlining learning identified and how it plans to make improvements. A copy of the report is to be shared with the landlord’s board, the resident and the Ombudsman.	No later than 01 June 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 June 2023	The resident contacted the landlord about the lack of progress made to address damp and mould growth which had occurred after a leak earlier in the year. They said appointments to address the damage caused by the leak often did not go ahead, this caused them frustration and distress. They were also worried about the potential health impact of mould exposure. The resident asked for the issue to be treated as a complaint, but the landlord recorded it as a service request.
12 September 2023	The landlord decided to treat the resident’s concerns shared on 22 June 2023 as a complaint.
22 September 2023	The landlord sent its stage one response. It said: It apologised for the occasions when appointments had not gone ahead. On 23 May 2023 it raised repairs to treat damp and mould. It attended the property on 12 June 2023, but it was only able to address issues in the bathroom. On 3 July 2023 the resident refused works as the operative proposed treating a small section of the kitchen wall. The resident wanted the kitchen cupboards removed and for the full wall to be treated. On 17 August 2023 the kitchen cupboards were removed and the wall was treated. It offered the resident compensation of £250. This comprised of £25 for missed appointments, £25 for repair delays and £200 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
26 October 2023	The resident escalated their complaint. They said: Previous surveyors had agreed to works that were not carried out, and surveyors had also suggested the property’s kitchen upgrade could be brought forward due to damp and mould damage. They said the landlord did not address this at stage one. They disagreed with the landlord’s statement that they had refused works. They said contractors identified that the kitchen cupboards would need to be removed by a carpenter. After a recent appointment the electrics in their kitchen had stopped working. This resulted in their food spoiling, and they were without a working oven for 21 days. They asked for compensation for this.
12 January 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said: It outlined the actions it had taken to address the leak and subsequent damp and mould growth. Regarding the damaged kitchen cupboards, it explained that it would always try to repair the damage in the first instance, and any kitchen upgrade would depend on a stock condition survey. It said its asset management team would contact the resident about this. It had arranged for a surveyor to inspect the kitchen and identify any outstanding repairs. It apologised for its delay in sending the stage 2 response. It offered the resident £150 for the delays experienced at stage 2 of the complaint. It offered the resident an additional £200 to the compensation offered at stage 1 for its failure to recognise delays in completing the repair.
14 May 2024	The resident brought their complaint to us. They were dissatisfied that the repairs were not completed, despite them repeatedly chasing the landlord. They said the condition of the property affected their enjoyment of the home, and meant they were unable to have visitors.
30 May 2024	After the resident’s MP contacted the landlord, it reviewed its stage 2 response. It wrote to the resident and said: It apologised for missing opportunities to resolve the complaint at stage 2. It assigned a case handler to oversee the outstanding repairs through to completion. It had reviewed the compensation offered at stage 2 and felt £650 was more appropriate for the distress and inconvenience experienced from the outstanding repairs. It apologised for not addressing the electrical issues in the kitchen earlier and it offered £300 in compensation for the loss of use of the oven. It said it had not previously considered all missed appointments when calculating compensation, and it offered an additional £50 for this. It had reviewed its complaint handling and identified delays at each stage of the process. To address this, it offered £250 compensation.
23 January 2025	The landlord wrote to the resident and apologised as it had not completed the works it committed to in May 2024, and it acknowledged the distress associated with this. The landlord offered the resident additional compensation for time and trouble they experienced, broken down as: The £1,250 offered on 30 May 2024. A 5% reduction in rent for the 14 months the complaint had been outstanding for, this was calculated as £570. £350 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
6 August 2025	The landlord wrote to the resident to update its offer of compensation. It was now offering the following: £50 for missed appointments. £300 for loss of use of an oven. £350 for distress and inconvenience. A 5% reduction in rent for September 2023 to May 2025, totalling £737. £650 for poor complaint handling. £1,250 for the time, troubles and delays experienced. This brought the total compensation offered in response to the resident’s complaint to £3,337.

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 landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
Finding	Severe maladministration

The landlord’s repairs policy sets expected timescales for completing works. For repairs that are complex or require specialist trades or equipment, it aims to complete the work within 60 calendar days.
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy says it will investigate all reports of damp, mould and condensation. When it has a responsibility to repair it will ensure all repairs are carried out, and that it communicates with residents to provide a consistent service. It will monitor works previously conducted to ensure they are effective.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it can offer compensation for distress and inconvenience. Where a service failure has a high impact over a medium to long period, it can award between £600 and £1,000. Where a service failure causes serious disruption and results in serious or long‑term impact, the policy says compensation may exceed £1,000. The policy also says compensation can be used to offset rental arrears.
On 27 January 2023 a leak into the resident’s property was identified. The leak affected the dividing wall between the kitchen and bathroom. After the leak was repaired, the landlord arranged follow‑on works for 15 March 2023. This appointment did not go ahead because the operative had been tasked with addressing the leak rather than repairing the damage caused by it. The works were rearranged for 6 April 2023, but this appointment also did not proceed as the resident expected repairs to remedy the damage. These delays could likely have been avoided if the landlord had communicated clearly with the resident about the extent of the damage, and ensured it fully understood its repair obligations before scheduling appointments.
On 23 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to chase the repairs. The landlord arranged a damp and mould inspection for 31 May 2023. The inspection identified mould growth underneath wallpaper in the kitchen. Following this inspection, repairs to address the damp and mould and to remove the kitchen cupboards were arranged to occur in July 2023. The scheduled works could not be fully completed due to time restraints, and the repairs also resulted in electrical outages for the resident. This resulted in the resident having no electricity in the kitchen for 20 days. This was poor customer service, and it would have caused the resident distress.
The landlord’s communication with the resident did not meet the standard set out in its policy. The records show that the resident frequently chased the landlord for updates and repeatedly reported a lack of progress. This was unreasonable, as the landlord should have provided clear and regular updates, without the resident needing to prompt it to do so.
In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for the time taken to complete the repairs and offered £450 in compensation. In its stage 2 response, it said it would arrange for a surveyor to assess whether any further works were needed, and for its asset management team to discuss potential kitchen upgrades with the resident. We asked the landlord to provide evidence that if it actioned these commitments. It did not provide any material to suggest this occurred.
The landlord’s stage 2 offer would have been reasonable had it followed through on its commitments and ensured the repairs were completed at the time. However, after the stage 2 response the resident contacted the landlord, their MP and us due to a lack of progress. The resident’s actions in seeking additional support indicated they felt communication from the landlord remained insufficient, and that the condition of the home was continuing to cause them distress.
On 30 May 2024 the landlord reviewed its stage 2 response. It apologised for not fully addressing the complaint and committed to completing the outstanding repairs. Despite this, the landlord did not raise the works until 20 September 2024, almost 4 months after the review. An inspection took place on 22 October 2024, and further works were raised following that visit. On 27 February 2025 the repairs were booked to take place in March and April 2025. The landlord’s records show the repairs were completed in May 2025, more than 2 years after the leak was first reported.
The landlord’s handling of the repairs demonstrated poor oversight and management. This was inappropriate given it had already identified failings at stage 2 and therefore had a responsibility to ensure the works were completed promptly. It should not have taken over 2 years for the damage to be rectified.
The resident told us the landlord’s lack of progress caused them significant distress, they felt their concerns were not taken seriously as the landlord downplayed the condition of the property and the impact this had on the household. The resident said the damp and mould had a significant impact on their ability to use their kitchen, as the kitchen cupboards were saturated with mould, and therefore unusable. Additionally, after the cupboards were removed, they remained in the property for a significant period despite the resident raising concerns around mould exposure for them and their child. The resident said the lack of functional kitchen cupboards meant they had to store kitchen items around the property, and this impacted familial life. Additionally, the impact on the resident was prolonged as it took over two years for the repairs to be completed.
After its stage 2 response the landlord made 3 further compensation offers to address the time taken to complete the repairs, and the resident’s associated distress. In its final offer made in August 2025, the landlord said it would offset £2,637 from the resident’s rent arrears. This amount comprised of:
1. £50 for missed appointments.
2. £300 for the loss of use of an oven.
3. £350 for distress and inconvenience.
4. £737 for the loss of enjoyment of the property.
5. £1250 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
The landlord’s final offer of compensation was in line with its policies, and showed it acknowledged the level of distress the resident experienced. However, the landlord had several earlier opportunities to improve the condition of the property and make an appropriate offer of compensation, and it failed to do so. The August 2025 offer was made over 2 years after the resident’s complaint. Considering the time it took for the landlord to make this offer we consider it to be a standalone offer rather than an extension of the landlord’s complaint procedure.
In its stage 2 response the landlord offered £450 in compensation, and it committed to inspecting the kitchen to identify further repairs. We have seen no evidence to suggest an inspection occurred within a reasonable period, or that the landlord effectively managed the repairs after stage 2 of the complaint. Therefore, we have found severe maladministration occurred as even though the landlord committed to making improvements at stage 2, there were several missed opportunities for it to put matters right. Additionally, even though the landlord admitted failings had occurred in its management of the repairs, after its final complaint response it failed to maintain appropriate communication with the resident.
The resident has told us they believe the compensation the landlord offered in August 2025 has not been paid. They said they asked the landlord about this, and they have received no response to their enquiries. We raised this with the landlord, and it provided evidence to show this amount was offset against the resident’s arrears. Its decision to offset the compensation from the arrears was in line with its policy, and therefore appropriate. However, the landlord’s lack of communication around this was unreasonable, and it has caused the resident additional distress and frustration.
We have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £200 in compensation. This is to address the distress the resident experienced from its lack of communication and management of the repairs throughout the 19 months in between the stage 2 response and the final offer of compensation. We have not made orders or recommendations around the compensation offer made in August 2025, as we have seen evidence of this amount being applied to the resident’s rental account.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction however made. Once a complaint is made the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of that acknowledgement. If the resident requests escalation to stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the request within 5 working days and provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of that acknowledgement.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it can award compensation for the time and trouble experienced during the complaints process. Where a resident has been inconvenienced because the landlord has not followed its complaints procedure, the policy says it can offer between £151 and £250. For more extensive failures, and where this has had a significant impact on the resident, the policy advises compensation of £251 to £400 or more.
On 22 June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord about the outstanding repairs, and they asked for the matter to be treated as a complaint. The landlord treated this as a service request, this was unreasonable given the resident wished to raise a complaint. If the landlord felt the matter could not be dealt with as a complaint it should have explained this to the resident to prevent confusion.
On 12 September 2023 the landlord decided to treat the concerns raised on 22 June 2023 as a complaint. This was 59 working days after the resident’s contact. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 9 working days later, which was in line with its policy timescales.
The resident escalated their complaint on 26 October 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the escalation, leading the resident to chase the matter on 13 November 2023. The landlord then acknowledged the escalation on 16 November 2023, which was 16 working days after the escalation request. This was not in line with its policy. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 39 working days after the escalation, which was also outside the policy timescales.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £150 in compensation for the delays at stage 2. This was a positive step. However, the landlord did not fully address its complaint handling, as it did not recognise or apologise for the delay in recording the complaint.
The landlord carried out a full review of its complaint handling when it issued its stage 2 review on 30 May 2024. The review identified delays at both complaint stages, poor coordination throughout the complaint, and failures to follow up on commitments. It offered £250 in compensation for these failings.
In August 2025 the landlord reviewed the compensation it had previously offered to try and resolve the complaint. Taking into account the length of time it had taken to address the repairs, it offered £650 for its complaint handling. This was a significant level of compensation within the ranges set out in its policy, and it reflected that it recognised the impact the delays had on the resident. While the compensation offered was reasonable, the resident had experienced significant distress, and the landlord had opportunities to prevent this at an earlier stage.
We have found that maladministration occurred as it took too long for the landlord to recognise its failings. While it offered significant compensation, it took 3 revised offers of compensation before it did so. This shows the resident experienced a cycle of failings where the landlord was unable to put matters right.As we consider the compensation already offered for complaint handling to be appropriate, we have ordered the landlord to apologise for its complaint handling failings, and the impact this had on the resident. While the landlord has previously reviewed its complaints handling, we have ordered the landlord to conduct an additional review. Thisis to ensure it has fully considered the failings we have identified, and any appropriate steps it can take to make improvements.

Learning

Our review of the complaint has identified areas where the landlord can learn from this case to support future service improvement.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s response to the damage caused by the leak could have been improved if it had kept better records about the damage, the works required to address the damage, and what works were outstanding. The lack of information retained led to avoidable delays.

Communication

The landlord’s communication could have been improved, as the resident had to frequently chase for updates and the landlord did not follow up on commitments made in its complaint responses.