Peabody Trust (202436514)

Background

1. The property is a new build 2-bedroom house. The resident lives in this house with her young daughter. She reported to us that her daughter had respiratory issues and skin inflammation concerns. She told the landlord about her daughter’s poor health although records do not show that she shared specific details. She said she was concerned about the coldness and mould in her daughter’s bedroom, which led to this complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Her reports of damp and mould around the windows and coldness in the smaller bedroom.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould around the windows and coldness in the smaller bedroom.
   2. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould around the windows and coldness in the smaller bedroom

5. There were excessive delays in taking action to diagnose the cause of the reported coldness, damp and mould. The landlord did not take effective steps to resolve the issue or mitigate the impact on the resident. Its approach to addressing this issue came across as being dismissive.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord missed opportunities to recognise the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction as a formal complaint. It delayed in issuing a stage 2 complaint response and confused the subject matter in its communications. Its complaint responses contained insufficient information and failed to reflect how long the cold and mould issues remained unresolved.

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.

Recommendations

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

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 have not considered

7. The resident originally bought the property from a company with which the landlord merged between 2022 and 2023. For these reasons, although we recognise that the resident has reported damp and mould issues since 2019, our findings for failings are based solely on the landlord’s actions from April 2023 onwards, when it took overall control of the property. Our orders for remedies are meant to address only the impact caused during this period.
8. However, in order to provide context for the resident’s experience and fully recognise the reported impact on her, we have referred to events starting from April 2019 below.
9. Since May 2025, the resident has also raised concerns about a leaking bathtub which she has told us remains not fully resolved. However as the landlord has not previously addressed these concerns through the complaints process, we have decided not to include this matter in the present investigation. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to do so now and take this opportunity to put things right for the resident.

What we have looked at

10. The landlord accepted this matter as a formal complaint in January 2025 and continued to address unresolved concerns in January 2026. We have considered events starting from April 2023 up to 16 January 2026.

The handling of reports of damp, mould and coldness

11. There were extensive delays in the landlord’s handling of this matter. It failed to respond to the resident for extended periods of time and on some occasions it misunderstood her concerns. It also missed multiple opportunities to take meaningful action to address the repair issues. This was especially concerning given that the resident had reported her child’s health vulnerabilities multiple times.
12. Records show the resident had reported snagging issues and concerns about damp and mould since March 2019. She first referred to mould around the windows in her newborn daughter’s bedroom in November 2019. She was asked to list any unresolved snagging issues in December 2020 as the 2-year defect liability period was coming to an end. She reported this issue again at the time, but the previous landlord did not follow up.
13. The resident subsequently chased for updates in December 2021, January, March, May and June 2022. She sent numerous emails and calls to explain that it was excessively cold in her daughter’s bedroom with mould growth around the windows and on the walls. During this time, a contractor assigned to deal with this issue made multiple promises of action but never followed through. They said they would arrange an inspection, send a glazier and then scaffolding to allow further investigation. None of these actions materialised.
14. In June 2022 the former landlord told the resident its contractor had been told to stop work immediately due to health and safety certification concerns. It said it would respond again when the issue had been resolved. There was no subsequent follow-up.
15. In November 2024 after a gap of about 17 months, the resident chased the landlord on the same issue again. At this point, the landlord should have spoken with the resident to fully understand what has happened. It should have had access to correspondence records. There was no evidence it reviewed her case file or sought to satisfy itself it was aware of the repairs history.
16. The landlord failed to recognise that the issue had persisted for so long. It missed opportunities to arrange for a damp and mould survey, an inspection of the window, or offer advice on managing condensation or improving ventilation. It however arranged for a thermal imaging survey which took place in early February 2025.
17. Although we requested a copy of the thermal imaging survey, the landlord has not provided this. There was no evidence it shared the findings with the resident. There is no record that it explained the structural issues it identified and how these might have been contributing to the cold, damp and mould.
18. After this survey, the landlord proposed extensive structural remedial works to improve the insulation with an aim to address ‘draughts flowing behind the plasterboard’. It also did work on the loft insulation, requiring 5-6 work days, drilling multiple holes on the walls, moving a lot of the furniture and a full wall redecoration.
19. Correspondence between the parties suggested this work was carried out in mid-May 2025. The resident later asked the landlord to provide an update on whether there would be any monitoring or post-inspections to ensure the works were effective. The landlord did not reply. We have not seen any evidence of a post-inspection or further monitoring of indoors temperatures, to show the landlord made effort to confirm the works had resolved the issue.
20. Even when reviewing the case in September 2025, the landlord made a series of avoidable errors. Internal correspondence shows there was confusion between the case handler and a surveyor over whether there had ever been any damp and mould in the property. When the surveyor advised they did not remember any damp and mould issues, despite only having attended to check the resident’s bathtub, the landlord then incorrectly advised the resident that ‘the original inspection did not find any damp and mould issues’. It said, for that reason, it would not carry out any further damp and mould surveys.
21. As of 16 January 2026, the resident has told us the coldness, damp and mould remained unresolved. The landlord arranged for another thermal imaging survey to take place in January 2026. These events indicate there may be further structural issues that were potentially contributing to the damp and mould and coldness in the property and the landlord may be responsible for resolving this. However it still had not carried out any monitoring of the indoors temperatures, or damp and mould survey.
22. The landlord made an incorrect assumption and missed further opportunities to resolve the longstanding problem. It also made an unreasonable decision in refusing to conduct a new survey, irrespective of the previous findings.
23. Overall, the landlord caused extensive delays and did not follow through on what it promised. It did not do enough to diagnose the cause of the coldness, damp and mould, or take appropriate action. It repeatedly misunderstood or dismissed the resident’s concerns.
24. About 8 months after its final complaint response, the landlord made a revised offer of £400 compensation. The resident accepted this. However, there is no explanation on file to show what issue this offer was meant to address or how it was calculated. In any event we consider it failed to take into account the length of time the resident had been experiencing these issues without receiving an appropriate response, or the fact it failed to consider the reported vulnerabilities of her child.
25. The landlord has referred the resident to the NHBC under her warranty and advised her to make a claim for her damaged personal belongings under her contents insurance. In the event where the landlord’s actions or lack of action might have contributed to the damage, it would be appropriate for the landlord to exercise discretion to award compensation, or signpost the resident to its public liability insurer. The landlord did not do so.
26. Due to the reasons stated above, we find severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of coldness, damp and mould in the smaller bedroom. We have made orders for the landlord to make an apology and pay the resident compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience this has caused.
27. The resident had gone to considerable effort and expenses trying to manage the coldness, damp and mould on her own. She had arranged her own dehumidifiers, cleaned the mould by herself and painted the property throughout this period. She experienced significant distress and inconvenience. We consider it is appropriate to take a broad-brush approach and have awarded the resident £1,600 compensation (calculated at £50 per month for 32 months from April 2023 to December 2025).
28. The landlord should also provide details of its public liability insurer so the resident could claim for damaged personal items, for which we have made a recommendation above.

29. Our Complaint Handling Code states that complaint handlers should consider all relevant evidence and information carefully; they should provide clear reasons for their decisions; and any remedy offered must reflect the impact on the resident as a result of any fault identified.
30. In order to do that, landlords should review the timeline of events to see when residents first report issues, so it can correctly identify the cause and duration of delays or non-action. It should use this as a basis to make reasonable offers of redress and identify learning. It should include this information in its complaint responses.
31. There was considerable delay in the landlord recognising the resident’s complaint. She first raised the issue in November 2019 and by December 2021 she was expressing dissatisfaction about the lack of follow-up. Even taking into account the landlord’s merger in 2023 and allowing time for integration of databases, as of November 2024 when the resident repeated this issue, the landlord should have referred her to the complaints team. However, it was only after she contacted us that it accepted her complaint in January 2025.
32. At stage 1, the landlord did not review its correspondence with the resident or the information it had on file about this property. In January 2025 the parties were arranging the first thermal imaging survey to diagnose the cause of the coldness, damp and mould.
33. The complaint handler did not consider this information or how it might relate to the subject complaint. It only told her it would not take responsibility for any damp and mould issues unless she obtained a report to prove it was caused by structural issues. This response gave inconsistent information and appeared dismissive, causing avoidable distress and upset to the resident.
34. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged that its stage 1 complaint response was inadequate. It however offered only £50 for the impact caused without considering the wider context and the resident’s overall experience of pursuing the matter for 5-6 years without resolution.
35. The landlord also delayed progressing the resident’s escalation request. After it said it would accept the request, she had to chase 3 times before it replied on 28 February 2025 to say it would allocate a senior complaint lead soon, when it should already have done so. Confusingly, it later sent her another acknowledgement of escalation. It issued the final response on 21 March 2025 which was beyond its 20-working day timeframe (from the day of acknowledgment on 10 February 2025). It did not say to her at any point that it needed an extension.
36. The compensation offer was revised several times. At stage 2 the landlord initially offered £100, then raised this to £250 afterwards with no explanation given. 8 months later, it made another revised offer of £400, again without explanation. This process showed the landlord had not fully considered what the actual impact to the resident was and what it should do to put things right for her. There is no evidence of the landlord reflecting on its failures and learning from this experience.
37. There were also times from May to September 2025 when the landlord confused the resident’s damp and mould complaint with a bathtub issue. In an email of 3 July 2025 the  complaint handler told the resident her complaint was about a roof leak, not damp and mould. On other occasions it denied it received reports of damp and mould and claimed there were no damp and mould issues at the property.
38. Overall the landlord’s complaint handling was dismissive and confusing. It did not acknowledge the fact it should have accepted the resident’s case as a formal complaint much sooner. She was unfairly prevented from progressing the issue or bringing the complaint to our service. The complaint responses also contained errors and inconsistent information. They did not contain sufficient information on what had actually happened, or reflections on what had gone wrong.
39. We find there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and offer financial compensation of £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. This is at the upper end of what our remedies guidance suggests for failures in complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

40. Our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and information management (KIM) set out that landlords should ensure its databases are capable of adequately capturing information about residents (including vulnerabilities) and repairs. Staff should be able to easily access information they require as this is essential for evidence-based decision-making.
41. On multiple occasions the landlord was unable to keep track of the resident’s complaint and correctly understand her concerns, due to not accessing or not reviewing her emails on file. If it had accessed and collated this data better, it could have taken meaningful action much sooner to address this complaint.

Communication

42. The landlord’s communication with the resident was dismissive and unfair. On some occasions it made assumptions based on unreliable sources of information, appearing to deny a problem existed despite the available evidence. This caused avoidable distress to the resident. It needs to ensure its responses to a resident are based on a thorough factual review, rather than recall by memory.
43. The complaints team should review its communication style and approach to ensure this does not happen again.