Peabody Trust (202324109)

Background

1. In July 2023, the resident reported that the landlord had not repaired a cracked upstairs window. She raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the issue.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of window repairs.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of window repairs.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of window repairs.

5. The landlord was responsible for repairing the resident’s upstairs bedroom window but failed to complete the repair within its stated timescales. However, the landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised, offered proportionate compensation, and committed to making service improvements.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

6. The landlord did not handle the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint policy or the Complaint Handling Code, which resulted in significant delays at both stages and poor communication about progress. It also did not accurately reflect the resident’s reasons for escalating her complaint. These failings caused the resident additional time, trouble and inconvenience. However, the landlord acknowledged its shortcomings, apologised, offered proportionate compensation, and set out learning to improve future complaint handling.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate and why

7. This Service may not consider the landlord’s actions in relation to historic window repairs, as these concerns were not brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the issues arising. The investigation has therefore focused on the complaint the resident made in July 2023, which concerned an unresolved window repair.
8. This Service does not typically consider complaints that have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This Service has not seen evidence that events after 12 February 2024 exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

What we found

9. It is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for repairing the resident’s upstairs bedroom window. The landlord’s repair policy says it should complete non‑urgent repairs within 28 calendar days.
10. The resident reported a cracked pane to an upstairs bedroom window on 13 April 2023. An appointment was booked for 2 May 2023 but was rescheduled at the resident’s request. A further appointment was arranged for 29 May 2023; however, the contractor did not attend. The landlord later confirmed that the appointment had been incorrectly scheduled on a bank holiday. On 20 July 2023, the resident made a formal complaint about the lack of progress. At this stage, the contractor also reported no access and closed the work order.
11. The resident chased the landlord on 7 occasions to request an update on the repair. These included emails sent on 16 August 2023, 29 August 2023 and 6 September 2023. She explained that she was concerned the situation would worsen as the weather became colder. The landlord did not use these repeated contacts as a trigger to review progress, re‑open the repair, or ensure the works were progressed.
12. A new repair order was raised on 18 December 2023, following contact from this Service to the landlord. The window repair was completed on 30 January 2024. This was more than 9 months after the repair was first reported and significantly outside the landlord’s stated timescale for completing non-urgent repairs.
13. In summary, there was a significant and avoidable delay in completing the window repair. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident during this period, and the information it provided was not timely or consistently accurate. There were prolonged periods with no meaningful updates and no evidence of sustained progress in addressing the repair.
14. Taken together, these shortcomings demonstrate that the landlord did not act in line with its obligations or provide a reasonable standard of service in its management and oversight of the repair. The resident also spent considerable time and effort pursuing updates over an extended period.
15. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged its failings and offered £500 compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the prolonged delay in repairing the window. The landlord said it would use the complaint to improve its handling of repairs by strengthening oversight, updating policies and procedures, and improving repair tracking and communication to reduce delays.
16. Having regard to the failings identified in this report and the actions the landlord took to put things right, we find that the landlord offered reasonable redress. The resident told this Service that she received the landlord’s £800 compensation payment in January 2026. This reflects the service failures identified, the landlord’s acknowledgment of those failings and its learning from them, and the level of compensation offered, which is in line with our compensation guidance.

17. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it should acknowledge complaints within five working days and provide a stage one response within 10 working days and a stage two response within 20 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The policy also allows for extensions of up to 10 working days, provided the resident is informed and revised timescales are agreed.
18. The landlord failed to comply with its policy at both stages. It did not acknowledge the complaint within the required timescales, nor did it agree any extensions with the resident. The stage one response was issued on 18 December 2023, 108 working days after the resident made a formal complaint on 20 July 2023. The stage two response was issued on 12 February 2024, 36 working days after the resident escalated the complaint on 20 December 2023. These delays were unreasonable and caused the resident additional time, trouble and inconvenience.
19. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated that the resident had asked for an increase in compensation as part of her escalation request. However, the evidence shows that the resident’s primary reason for escalating her complaint was to seek resolution of the outstanding window repair. By focusing largely on compensation, the landlord did not fully reflect the reasons the resident gave for escalating her complaint, which contributed to her dissatisfaction with the complaint handling.
20. In the stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delays and offered £300 compensation for the time and trouble the resident experienced in pursuing her complaint.
21. This offer was in line with our compensation guidance for complaint handling failures where service failings have had an adverse impact on a resident and was proportionate in the circumstances of the case.
22. The landlord also committed to using the complaint to improve service delivery by strengthening internal learning, sharing feedback across teams, and increasing resource capacity to support timely and independent complaint handling.
23. Taking account of the complaint handling failings identified, the landlord’s apology, its offer of compensation, and its commitment to learning, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord offered reasonable redress.

Learning

24. The landlord did not manage the complaint in line with the timescales set out in its complaint policy or the Complaint Handling Code. This reinforces the importance of landlords adhering to complaint handling timescales, promptly acknowledging complaints, and agreeing extensions with residents where delays are unavoidable, in line with the Code.
25. The case also demonstrates the need for landlords to accurately reflect the reasons residents escalate complaints and to address the substantive issues raised, rather than focusing narrowly on compensation, to ensure fair and effective complaint resolution.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The case demonstrates the importance of landlords actively monitoring routine repairs, responding promptly to repeated resident contact, and maintaining effective oversight of contractors to avoid unnecessary delays and maintain resident confidence. Clear, consistent communication and accurate records are essential to support timely repair progression.

Communication

27. It also highlights the need for landlords to maintain clear and comprehensive complaint records, including retaining copies of original complaint submissions, to support transparency, evidence‑based decision‑making, and effective complaint handling.