Peabody Trust (202343735)

Decision
Case ID	202343735
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	31 March 2026

Background

The leaseholder rents out the flat. He reported water entering the 3 bedrooms at the back of the flat and said he could see that the guttering was leaking. He made a formal complaint because the landlord did not carry out the repair. He later asked the landlord to reimburse him for the direct expenses he incurred when he arranged the repair himself.

What the complaint is about

The leaseholder’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the guttering.
2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found the landlord responsible for maladministration in its handling of repairs to the guttering.
We found the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress which resolved its complaint handling failings.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the guttering

The landlord failed to repair the guttering despite repeated reports of water ingress. It relied on incorrect contractor evidence from a different property and continued to say repairs were complete even though the leak persisted and the leaseholder repeatedly provided evidence to the contrary. As a result, the leaseholder told the landlord he would arrange the works himself. The landlord did not reply to this, and he then arranged and funded the work himself.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord significantly delayed acknowledging and responding to the leaseholder’s complaint at both stages of the process. However, it recognised these failings, apologised, and offered £300 in compensation. This offer is reasonable to put things right by recognising the time and trouble caused by the complaint handling delays.

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 leaseholder for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. 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 leaseholder £8,934 (including the £2,150 already offered – £1,800 at stage 2 and £350 offered at stage 1 towards the insurance excess) made up as follows: £7,500 for 83.33% of the cost the leaseholder paid for guttering repairs. £584 in interest. £350 towards the excess the leaseholder paid as part of the buildings insurance claim for the internal damage. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the guttering repairs.	No later than 28 April 2026
3	Learning order The landlord must carry out a senior management review of the failures identified in this case and produce a report detailing its learning. The review should include, but is not limited to: Why the landlord did not investigate the photos and information the leaseholder provided against the photos from the contractor’s report, so it could determine if it had attended the correct property. Why the leaseholder was not able to communicate directly with the contractor about the water ingress, so he could assist them in understanding what was happening. Why the landlord did not provide a clear position when the leaseholder told it several times, over a period of 3 weeks, that he intended to undertake the repairs himself. Why the landlord did not log a complaint earlier, despite the leaseholder raising dissatisfaction using several methods. The report should outline the steps the landlord will take to make sure these failings are not repeated in the future. The landlord must provide a copy of its report to us within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.	No later than 12 May 2026

Recommendation

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

Our recommendation
We recommend that the landlord pay £300 in compensation that it offered in its stage 2 response for the time and trouble caused by complaints handling failures.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 October 2023	The leaseholder raised a formal complaint online. He said: He reported leaking guttering causing water to enter the property on 11 September 2023, and the landlord had not attended. Repair jobs had been raised for the wrong property, which is another property he owns.
13 November 2023	The leaseholder raised another formal complaint online. He said: Despite the landlord informing him the repair was complete, water continued to enter the 3 bedrooms because the guttering was still leaking. There was now extensive internal damage to the property. An urgent repair to the guttering was needed to stop the water ingress. He would employ a contractor to complete the works and would send the invoice to the landlord.
25 November 2023	The leaseholder obtained a quote for the work totalling £9,000, made up of: £2,600 for scaffolding £4,900 to clean existing box gutter, remove cabling and refit safely, and remove the felt lining and replace it with 2 layers of roofing felt. £1,500 VAT (20%)
16 December 2023	The leaseholder raised a further formal complaint online. He said: Extensive damage had been caused to his property because the landlord had failed to repair the leaking gutters. He had complained online, by email, by phone, and through social media, and responses had been poor or non-existent. He called the landlord on 23 November 2023 and followed up by email on 2 December 2023 saying he could not wait any longer and would start the repairs himself and would send the invoice. He sent the £9,000 quote and then the invoice once works were completed. He wanted the landlord to: Reimburse him £9,000 for the repair he said the landlord was responsible for. Pay £1,000 in compensation for the time he spent dealing with the issue.
15 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response (dated 8 January 2024 but emailed on 15 January). It said: The repair job had initially been raised to the wrong address. Works were allocated to a contractor on 1 October 2023. The contractor attended between 10-26 October 2023 and completed works to the downpipe, and the landlord accepted the contractor’s report, supported by images and quotations. It failed to arrange further works when the leaseholder notified it on 13 November 2023 that the leak continued. There had been poor communication because the repairs coordinator had been frequently diverted to cover calls. It does not reimburse customers who employ their own contractors. It advised the leaseholder to submit a liability insurance claim for the £9,000 reimbursement request. It offered £500 compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience. If offered £350 towards building insurance excess for the internal damage claim.
15 January 2024	The leaseholder escalated his complaint. He said: The landlord’s explanation of what was repaired did not make sense based on the guttering design. He believed the contractor had attended the wrong property and suggested the landlord review his photos against the contractor’s report. His photos showed water ingress into the 3 bedrooms at the back of the house caused by guttering, not a downpipe issue. He would send a liability claim as advised. He asked the landlord to cover the full £500 excess rather than £350. He said £500 compensation was not adequate given the time he had spent and asked for £1,000.
January to February 2024	The landlord’s liability insurer rejected the leaseholder’s claim for reimbursement. It told the landlord’s complaints team that guttering repairs were the landlord’s responsibility and therefore not covered under the liability insurance policy.
16 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It apologised for poor communication and handling of the repair. It had attended to repair the guttering in October 2023. It remained satisfied with its stage 1 response and the £500 compensation offered for time, trouble, and inconvenience. It does not reimburse customers who employ contractors without written permission in advance. It acknowledged late complaint acknowledgements and responses at both stages. It offered £1,800 in compensation (including the £500 at stage 1), made up of: £300 for complaint handling failures. £500 for time, trouble, and inconvenience. £1,000 discretionary goodwill gesture towards repair costs.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The leaseholder brought the complaint to us because he was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. He wanted: £9,000 reimbursement for the repair, plus 45% per annum interest for the loan he took out to fund it. £500 reimbursement for the insurance excess for the internal damage claim. £1,000 compensation for the months of disruption.

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 repairs to the guttering
Finding	Maladministration

Under the lease, the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the external parts of the building, which includes the guttering. The leaseholder’s flat is on the first floor. There are 3 bedrooms at the back of the flat with guttering for the building located directly above the flat.
The leaseholder reported water ingress into the 3 bedrooms in September 2023 and provided photos showing leaking guttering. The landlord initially raised the repair to the wrong property on 3 separate occasions, causing around 2 weeks delay and requiring the leaseholder to chase repeatedly.
On 1 October 2023, the landlord raised a job with a contractor for the correct property. The contractor reported that works were completed by 26 October 2023. However, the contractor’s photographs showed a different property with a different guttering system. In November 2023, after the landlord said the repair was completed, the leaseholder told the landlord that the description of a ‘missing hopper’ did not match the design of the guttering on his building. He asked to speak to the contractor and to meet the landlord or contractor at the property to show them the problem. Despite this, the landlord continued to state, in both its January and April 2024 complaint responses, that the contractor had attended and completed a repair. The photos from the job were later shared with the leaseholder, who confirmed he does not own the property where the works were carried out.
Following the contractor’s reported visit, the leaseholder continued to report the issue persisted, and he provided further evidence. He told the landlord that:
1. The water ingress continued.
2. The bedrooms were no longer useable.
3. Internal damage was worsening.
4. His tenants had contacted the Council’s Environmental Health Department due to the conditions.
On 13 November 2023, the leaseholder submitted a complaint stating he may need to employ his own contractor if the landlord did not act. Over the following weeks, he repeatedly emailed and called the landlord explaining that he felt he had no option but to arrange the works himself. He obtained a £9,000 quote on 25 November 2023 and sent it to the landlord on 30 November 2023. The landlord did not give a clear response on whether it agreed to him arranging his own repair or whether it would reimburse the costs, instead either not responding or advising that someone would get back to him. In its complaint responses, the landlord later said it does not reimburse customers who employ contractors without written permission in advance, which is generally a reasonable position. However, in this case the leaseholder gave notice of his intention and sought permission, and the landlord missed the opportunity to set out its position before the works proceeded.
The leaseholder’s contractor completed the works by 8 December 2023, after which the water ingress stopped. The leaseholder then submitted the invoice and requested reimbursement. The landlord advised him to submit a liability insurance claim which was later rejected because guttering repairs were the landlord’s responsibility and therefore not covered under the liability policy. The landlord then refused reimbursement on the basis that it had not approved the works in advance and continued to rely on the contractor’s incorrect October 2023 attendance report to confirm that it had done the work needed.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the guttering repairs. The landlord did not resolve the issue, repeatedly maintained the works had been completed at the correct property when they had not, and failed to take action despite clear and escalating evidence of worsening water ingress. As a result, the leaseholder felt he had no choice but to arrange the repairs himself. This had a significant impact as he:
1. Paid the full cost of the external works.
2. Spent considerable time chasing the landlord.
3. Was concerned about potential enforcement action from Environmental Health.
While the landlord offered £1,000 as a goodwill contribution towards the repair costs, this does not reflect the nature or extent of the landlord’s failings. The building contains 6 flats, and the leaseholder is responsible for 16.67% of external repair costs via service charges. Given the circumstances of this case, it is fair and reasonable for the landlord to reimburse £7,500 (83.33% of the repair cost). This is because the landlord had the opportunity to repair the guttering but failed to do so; it incorrectly accepted that repairs had been completed despite evidence to the contrary; and it did not clarify its position during the 3-week period when the leaseholder warned it he would proceed independently.
The leaseholder asked for interest of 45% per annum on the loan he took out at the beginning of December 2023 to fund the repairs. The Ombudsman can consider ordering compensation to recognise the loss of interest (based on the Consumer Price Index) where a landlord has not paid money due to a leaseholder, the financial loss exceeds £1,000, and the period involved is more than 6 months. In this case, the leaseholder chose to fund the repair by taking out a personal loan for £9,000 and the level of interest charged arose from his chosen method of borrowing. It would therefore not be fair or proportionate to require the landlord to pay interest at a rate of 45%. The Consumer Price Index from 1 June 2024 (6 months after the leaseholder paid for the work) to 31 March 2026 (a 22- month period) averaged 3.54% per annum. In our view, it is fair and reasonable for the landlord to pay £584 in interest, based on applying a 3.54% CPI rate to £9,000 over 22 months.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered £350 towards the building insurance excess for internal damage. This was not included in the stage 2 response. The leaseholder asked for the full £500 excess to be reimbursed. We find that £350 is fair and reasonable, as some of the damage was likely caused by the initial water ingress, though the delays contributed to it worsening. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to pay this amount.
The landlord offered £500 compensation for distress and inconvenience. This is in line with our remedies guidance where maladministration has adversely affected a leaseholder. We find the amount fair and reasonable.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation. The policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. If additional time is needed, the landlord may extend these deadlines by up to 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2, provided it informs the customer.
The leaseholder expressed dissatisfaction several times and through multiple channels, beginning with an online complaint on 9 October 2023. He continued to express dissatisfaction through further online complaint forms, calls, emails, and social media. Despite this, the landlord did not acknowledge his complaint until 16 December 2023, after his third attempt to submit a complaint via the webform. This delay of more than 2 months was not reasonable and fell significantly outside the landlord’s 5-day acknowledgement timeframe.
The leaseholder escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 15 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged this 3 days late. It was then delayed in allocating the case, meaning the response deadline of 22 February 2024 was missed. The leaseholder and this Service chased for a stage 2 response. On 4 March 2024, the landlord said it needed a further 10 working days to respond and then issued its stage 2 response on 16 April 2024.
There were significant delays in the landlord’s complaints handling. In its stage 2 response, it acknowledged and apologised for this. It offered £300 in compensation for its complaint handling failures. We agree this amount is fair and reasonable to recognise the time and trouble caused to the leaseholder from the complaint handling delays. Our finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the landlord making this payment.

Learning

There is significant learning that the landlord can take from this investigation. Responding promptly when a leaseholder indicates they may take independent action, such as hiring their own contractor, may help to avoid disputes about liability, costs, or reimbursement expectations.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Ensuring that repair instructions and contractor reports are checked for accuracy, especially where residents or leaseholders provide contradictory evidence, may help avoid situations where incorrect works are accepted as completed.

Communication

The communication with the leaseholder was poor. He did not receive meaningful responses that addressed his questions or considered the evidence he provided. Despite asking, he was not given the opportunity to speak with the contractor about the problem. This could have provided a quicker resolution as it would have been an opportunity to clear up the confusion about which property had been visited.