Peabody Trust (202442761)

Decision
Case ID	202442761
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	12 February 2026

Background

The resident moved to the property, a one-bedroom, 3rd floor flat, in 2020 with her partner and 2 children. Since then, the household has increased to 2 adults and 3 children. It is overcrowded due to a lack of space. The resident and various other professionals have reported health and safety hazards since July 2023.
The resident’s young son is vulnerable. Professionals involved in his care report he has complex needs including autism, global developmental delay, reduced awareness of danger, sleep disturbances and mobility issues increasing his risk of falls.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

Reports of hazards and requests for a Management Transfer (MT).
Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of hazards and requests for a MT.
We found 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 deal with reports of hazards in line with its policy or statutory obligations. It took too long to deal with the resident’s request for a MT and failed to adequately explain its decisions.
While the landlord provided appropriate redress for its complaint handling delays, it did not address all the resident’s points of complaint.

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’s CEO must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure the apology is meaningful, empathetic and has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 12 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £6,932 compensation (inclusive of the £300 already awarded) made up of: £1,000 for distress and inconvenience caused by its failures dealing with hazards and the MT applications. £250 for time and trouble caused by complaint handling failures. £5,682 for the loss of use of 100% of the property.	No later than 12 March 2026
3	Take Specific Action The landlord must take all reasonable steps to assess the needs of the resident and her family in line with our temporary moves expectations Temporary moves expectations – Housing Ombudsman and offer suitable Temporary Accommodation (TA) by the due date. The accommodation must continue until the resident has been offered a suitable permanent alternative. If the landlord cannot do this, it must provide evidence of its attempts.	No later than 12 March 2026
4	Wider order The landlord must review and update its current rehousing policy as necessary and include: Examples of circumstances it considers as exceptional. The time in which it aims to consider a Priority Move Panel (PMP) application.	No later than 7 May 2026

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord makes a further compensation payment for loss of use of 100% of the property from 13 February 2026 to the day it offers the resident suitable TA. Any payment should be based on an average weekly rent of £113.64 as determined by the Regulator of Social Housing.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 January 2025	The resident complained: She had not received a written copy of a PMP decision of October 2023 and disagreed with it. There were hazards in the property. Damp and mould treatment would be ineffective. The landlord did not speak with medical professionals and told her she contacted it too much. She asked for an immediate permanent move.
6 March 2025	The landlord issued a stage 1 response and said: Overcrowding was not a valid reason for a MT (priority move). A survey identified no repairs but the resident needed a larger property and availability was limited. It would help her apply to the council for rehousing. It acknowledged delays dealing with the MT and her complaint and awarded £180 compensation.
6 March to 28 July 2025	The resident escalated her complaint and said: The landlord had not addressed all her complaint issues. She disagreed there were no outstanding repairs and said the property was uninhabitable and affecting the families health. The landlord had not explained the PMP decision of June 2024 and the presenting officer was inexperienced. The landlord did not act on the council’s request to re-house the family in TA. Staff misrepresented and discriminated against her. The landlord had since approved a MT and asked for TA until a suitable permanent property became available. She wanted a rent rebate and compensation for reasons that included an adverse effect on the family’s health and associated loss of income.
6 August 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 response and said it could take longer than the resident would like to find a new property. It apologised for delays and not providing a PMP decision and increased its offer of compensation to £300. It agreed to review its PMP process and said it had failed the resident.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident believes the landlord failed to deal with hazards and left the family in an uninhabitable property. She feels complaint delays prevented timely resolution of health and safety hazards. In addition to compensation, she wants the landlord to provide serviced suitable TA until it can offer alternative permanent housing suitable for the family’s needs.

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 reports of hazards and request for a MT
Finding	Severe maladministration

The landlord’s rehousing policy, at the time of the resident’s complaint, assessed applications for internal transfers on priority. It used PMPs to decide if residents qualified for a MT and could be given priority for an internal transfer over those who needed such due to health and disability needs or overcrowding. The policy said MTs may be awarded when residents were experiencing issues such as violence and domestic abuse. However, it also said they may be granted when there were exceptional needs such as social, educational or economic circumstances but did not explain what would justify such.
On 27 July 2023 the resident submitted evidence to support a MT. This was from several professionals involved in her son’s care. At that time, she had a medical need for re-housing (due to musculoskeletal issues). This would not justify a MT, unless there were also exceptional needs. The professionals detailed how the lack of space was affecting the son and said:

It exacerbated his behavioural and developmental needs, restricted therapeutic work and increased dysregulation.
He and his siblings were at risk due to his high activity levels and limited danger awareness.
The absence of a suitable dining space created a risk of choking.
He, his parents and younger sibling slept in one bed while his 7-year-old sister slept in a cot intended for a 5-year-old.

The professionals also reported fire hazards due to clothing stored in suitcases which were blocking exit points. They said the accommodation was unsafe and asked the landlord to rehouse the family.
Landlords must ensure their properties are free from avoidable hazards. The Housing Act 2004 gives councils legal responsibilities to enforce this. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) helps councils assess risks to ensure residential properties are safe and healthy. This system includes a potential hazard of ‘crowding and space’. Such hazard may be present if there is insufficient space for normal living, sleeping and family activities. Any assessment of such should not just consider over‑occupation but the likelihood of any occurrence and the potential severity of harm. The assessment includes the layout, amenities, location and presence of recreational space.
In the interests of fairness and availability of evidence, due to the passage of time, we will not assess the landlord’s response to these reported hazards at that time. We have referenced it only for context. However, on 9 October 2023 the landlord told the resident the PMP had refused her MT application as it could only be considered in certain cases such as domestic abuse. We do not know when the PMP heard the application and the landlord’s rehousing policy does not specify how long the process should take.
The landlord has not provided a copy of this decision, or the resident’s initial application. However, the resident replied soon after and said she had applied for a MT on several grounds including educational and social. She asked what the appeal process was and said she was unhappy with the decision.
There is no evidence the landlord replied and the resident continued to pursue this issue. On 9 November 2023 she provided 8 supporting letters from professionals. She reiterated previous concerns about hazards, as well as reporting a new one of falls between levels. She said her son was at risk of this due to his conditions and the 3rd floor position of the property. The supporting evidence said housing conditions were affecting the son’s education as he was asleep most afternoons by 1pm due to disturbed sleep. The professionals said he needed more space to walk as he had toe walking gait.
Again, there is no evidence the landlord provided a copy of the PMP decision. This delayed the resident’s ability to appeal or make a new application. Further, there is no evidence the landlord investigated the resident’s reports of hazards at that time. These were significant failures
On 23 November 2023 the resident reported that pest control had disturbed asbestos in her kitchen when they swept it. A previous survey of 2021 found asbestos in the adhesive used on kitchen floor tiles. It said the landlord would need to remove it if disturbed by refurbishment. It is positive the landlord completed a further asbestos survey on 9 January 2024. This found low level damage to the asbestos material and recommended inspecting it periodically.
The resident continued to report the hazards supported by her councillor and the mayor. She also requested another MT. We do not know when, but her neighbourhood manager presented it to the PMP on 5 June 2024, when it was refused. A record of the decision noted it did not meet the criteria for a PMP. Again, the decision did not say whether the PMP considered exceptional needs, as the resident had requested. The landlord wrote to the resident with the outcome and said she had 28 days to appeal. However, she said she did not receive the notification and asked for another copy on 2 September 2024. Although the landlord said it reissued the decision the resident again disputes receiving it.
Between 20 September and 3 October 2024, the resident reported damp and mould in the bedroom and a leak in the window. She also reported the property was cold despite heating it. She asked the landlord to replace the windows as the frames were broken, single glazed and gaps caused a draft.
Evidence suggests the landlord treated damp and mould on 3 October 2024. This was in line with its repair policy which says it aims to carry out routine repairs within 28 days. However, the resident contacted the landlord again on 15 October 2024 to say it had returned. She also said she believed the landlord had agreed to replace the windows.
The resident’s belief is supported in repair notes which refer to an undated window inspection by a contractor. The inspector recommended replacing 3 windows with double glazed units as they were in a bad condition. They noted the glass was very thin and unsafe and the resident’s severely autistic child could easily go through it. The contractor provided a quote.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 31 October 2024 and said she had received the PMP decision of 5 June 2024 that day. She said she had applied under exceptional needs and asked the landlord to contact her urgently. She said there were major health and safety risks in the property. Although the landlord told the resident it presented her application under exceptional needs on 6 November 2024, it did not explain what these were or why they did not meet the MT criteria. It is positive it extended the timeframe for her to appeal to 28 November 2024.
In the meantime, a damp and mould survey of 5 November 2024 found overcrowding and that the bedroom was crammed with furniture. The surveyor said the landlord could not do much to remedy damp and mould. He suggested installing thermal boarding but said the resident declined this for fear it would further reduce the amount of available space (although the resident disputes saying this). The landlord reviewed the survey and noted the resident would need to wait for a bigger property which would take time. There is no record of it addressing the surveyor’s report of a potential space and crowding hazard.
On 7 November 2024 the landlord told the resident it had not approved window replacements as the original contractor no longer covered her repair area. It arranged to apply a mould wash and restore the window frames on 14 November 2024. However, the resident refused the work, believing it would be futile as the windows needed to be replaced. While we understand her position, it is a condition of the tenancy agreement to allow the landlord to carry out these repairs. The resident believes the landlord re-inspected the windows on 21 November 2024 but we have not seen a record of this. The landlord referred the issue to its surveying team on 22 November 2024.
The resident appealed the PMP decision of 5 June 2024 on 27 November 2024. Further supporting evidence from professionals explained how damp and mould were affecting the family’s health. Again, the resident asked why the landlord rejected her previous application. She said the neighbourhood manager told her that the previous PMP said grounds for exceptional needs were ‘a pandora’s box and grey area’ which it had not previously applied. We have not seen evidence the PMP said this but understand the resident’s frustration, given she could not present the application herself. It is understandable she would want to know what information was presented to the PMP. Further, the landlord’s re-housing policy did not explain what merited exceptional needs and she was never told why her application on the basis of these did not meet the MT criteria.
Again, the landlord did not address this issue. On 5 December 2024 it encouraged the resident to explore alternative housing options and bid on other properties. It said it had treated minor mould but we have not seen a record of this. Although it confirmed shortly after that it would replace the windows, again we have not seen this was progressed within the 60 days repair policy timeframe for such work. The potential consequences of the landlord’s failure to replace windows, in addition to the other failures already identified, amount to severe maladministration.
On 10 December 2024 the resident reported mice were eating kitchen floor tiles which contained asbestos. She also said she believed the roof, loft and kitchen sink contained asbestos. While the resident referenced that pest control attended on 19 December 2024, there is no record of what happened during this visit.
The landlord reinspected damp and mould on 27 December 2024 and told the resident on 8 January 2025 that it found minimal mould. It said its contractor had been unable to clean it as the resident did not allow him to stand on her bed. It said it needed to investigate and would only consider TA for major work that caused significant disruption.
We have not seen a record of this inspection. However, contractor contacts of 6, 8 and 16 January 2024 do not support the landlord’s response. They said they could not treat the damp and mould while the resident remained in the property. They said they were highly concerned and living conditions were causing severe damp, mould and condensation. They asked the landlord to inspect the property itself.
The landlord’s alternative accommodation policy says it will consider offering TA when it is unable to complete extensive work while the resident remains in the property. We agree that some damp and mould treatments may not be considered as extensive. However, the policy also says the landlord should offer TA when the health and safety of a household would be at risk should resident’s remain in their home. We have not seen that the landlord sufficiently considered this part of its policy at that time.
On 15 January 2025 the landlord told the resident that the PMP had refused her MT appeal on 13 January 2025. It said overcrowding and medical conditions did not qualify for a MT. Again, the decision letter did not confirm what circumstances the PMP considered and if they considered exceptional needs. Further, the hearing took place 30 working days from when the resident appealed. This was outside the landlord’s policy time limit of 15 working days to hear an appeal.
The landlord removed asbestos in the kitchen on 23 January 2025. This was 44 days after the resident reported it had been disturbed by mice. This was in line with its repair policy time limit of 60 days for work requiring specialist contractors. While it initially declined the resident’s request for TA during this work, it is positive it later arranged this. However, we have not seen that the landlord responded to the concerns that asbestos was present in other parts of the property. While it may have felt further asbestos investigations were not needed, it should have reassured the resident or explained why.
There is no record of any damp and mould treatment at that time, although records of 21 January 2025 again show the resident declined work as she wanted a permanent move.
The next significant event was the council writing to the resident on 13 February 2025 saying it intended to assess her housing conditions under the Housing Act 2004. We do not know what prompted this but, as we have explained, councils can inspect properties if they believe there are hazards within. They must then evaluate the presence and severity of any hazards and decide the most appropriate enforcement action. This includes notices for landlords to carry out specified work within a set time or prohibition orders when all, or part, of the property is restricted due to health and safety risks.
The landlord was unable to tell us what the outcome of this inspection was. The resident said she did not receive written notification of such. It is disappointing that the result of the inspection is not available. It affects our ability to assess the appropriateness of the landlord’s response to the reported hazards.
The resident continued to report hazards resulting in a further survey of 27 February 2025. The surveyor said:

He could not recommend any repairs as condensation and mould was due to severe overcrowding which would reoccur while the existing living conditions continued.
The windows did not need renewing but could do with an overhaul.
The council’s Environmental Health Team recommended moving the family urgently to a 3- or 4-bedroom property.

The surveyor said the situation was dire and recommended an urgent permanent move to a suitable property. He said TA would not be helpful as the children had very specific needs.
The landlord miscommunicated the surveyor’s findings in its stage 1 response and said no repairs were identified. It also told the resident’s MP this in communications of 1 April and 20 May 2025. Further, it incorrectly said the windows were in good condition. It acknowledged the surveyor’s recommendation of a permanent move but said properties were limited. It encouraged the resident to engage with the council. Again, there is no evidence it assessed whether the household was at risk while they remained in the property.
Although the resident raised concerns about explosions from electricity units in her stage 2 escalation, we have not seen that the landlord investigated them. This was another failure in service.
Contacts from Advice UK on behalf of the resident suggest the landlord called her on 2 June 2025 and offered her TA in a hotel that evening. We have not seen a record of this contact. However, Advice UK said the resident declined the offer as it was late at night and there was no permanent plan.
The landlord carried out a further damp and mould survey on 6 June 2025. It is unclear why, given the outcome of the previous survey. The surveyor reported heavy levels of moisture in the bedroom and said the family no longer used it and were sleeping in the hallway or living room. He did not believe the property was habitable for a family of 5 with special needs. He said he found it difficult visiting for a 3rd time to find the situation worse and the resident and her partner visibly distraught. He recommended moving the family to serviced accommodation immediately and offering a permanent move as soon as possible due to health risks.
Although the landlord raised a mould wash on 10 June 2025 for the bedroom, it appears the resident did not facilitate this work as she was waiting for a permanent move. Again, it is a condition of her tenancy to allow the landlord to carry out work. However, we can understand why she made this decision, given the surveyor’s reports that such treatment would be ineffective.
We have not seen records to show the landlord offered TA, as recommended by the surveyor. However, it approved a permanent move to alternative accommodation on 11 June 2025. Again, we have not seen a record of this. The stage 2 response said the landlord reassessed the resident’s application after she sought legal advice (from a local charitable organisation). Also, that day the landlord approved work to overhaul and draughtproof all windows and doors.
It is positive the landlord acknowledged PMP delays and its failure to provide a decision in its stage 2 response. However, the £120 awarded for this was insufficient remedy for the distress and inconvenience caused. The resident spent significant time and trouble progressing her MT applications. The lack of explanation as to why she did not meet the MT criteria negatively impacted her ability to understand and challenge the outcome. She reasonably believes no PMP hearing took place.
Further, it did not respond to our question as to whether it had reviewed the PMP process as promised. While it has since updated its rehousing policy, it still does not specify how long it aims to deal with PMP applications. Further, it now includes the provision of a ‘Social Welfare Transfer’ for when residents are experiencing medical issues in addition to exceptional circumstances. However, it does not specify what type of circumstances would be considered as exceptional. We order the landlord to review its rehousing policy and clarify these issues.
The landlord’s stage 2 response also did not address its failure to investigate potential hazards and repair delays. Nor did it confirm its position regarding the window repairs. Notes of 18 September 2025 document that all windows needed replacing as they were single glazed, had gaps causing drafts and damp and mould had built up on the window. Although the landlord arranged to measure for replacement glass, we do not know when or if it was progressed. It was now at least 315 days since a contractor first recommended replacing the windows and said they were a hazard to the resident’s son. This was significantly outside the landlord’s 60-day repair time limit.
The resident has asked for compensation for the effect of these failures. It is widely accepted that hazards such as damp and mould can affect a person’s health. However, we are not medical experts and cannot assess whether the landlord’s actions caused an impact to health or resulted in the consequences the resident has described. The resident could seek independent advice on this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts.
While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings. The resident told us how they impacted her family and said they had not slept in their bedroom for some time. Further, she spent time and trouble facilitating repair inspections and appointments that often failed to resolve the issues. This affected the resident’s enjoyment of the property over a prolonged period when she was also worried it was unsafe. This distress and inconvenience is exacerbated by the household vulnerabilities.
We order the landlord to pay the resident £1,000 compensation (inclusive of the £120 already awarded). This is in line with our remedies guidance for multiple significant failures which have caused serious detriment to the resident.
Further, the survey of 27 February 2025 confirmed there was no remedy for severe mould and the survey of 6 June 2025 found the property was uninhabitable. This suggests all rooms were substantially impaired and could not be used for their intended purpose. The situation is unresolved and the resident continues to live in a property deemed uninhabitable by the landlord’s surveyor.
Therefore, we order the landlord to offer the resident suitable TA and pay compensation of £5,682 for the loss of use of 100% of the property from 27 February 2025 to 12 February 2026. This amount is based on an average weekly rent of £113.64 for the resident’s area and property type, as determined by the Regulator of Social Housing. The resident should be aware that the landlord’s alternative accommodation policy says it will make one reasonable offer of TA and, if rejected, residents must approach the council to source TA.
It is positive the landlord has since offered a permanent alternative property that the resident viewed on 22 September 2025. However, she declined it for several reasons including that the stairs, room sizes and outdoor communal spaces were unsafe and unsuitable for her son’s needs. She also said it was too far from the school, which often asked her to collect her children during school hours.
The landlord’s alternative accommodation policy says, amongst other things, it will consider the distance of the place of education and needs of vulnerable residents when sourcing alternative accommodation. We have not seen a record that it gave such consideration before offering the alternative property. We understand why the resident felt it was unsuitable. However, we remind her that the landlord’s alternative accommodation policy says it will make 2 (reasonable) formal offers of permanent accommodation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of them being acknowledged. Our complaint handling code says landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
The landlord failed to respond to the complaints within these time limits at both stages. The significant delays affected the resolution of substantive issues. They also caused the resident significant time and trouble chasing as the landlord did not regularly update her as to when she could expect to receive a response.
It is positive the landlord acknowledged complaint handling delays. Its offer of £180 compensation was appropriate for this issue. However, we have not seen that it addressed the resident’s multiple complaints about members of staff, including that they refused to speak to medical professionals and discriminated against her.
While some issues were raised only at stage 2, the landlord should have provided a stage 1 response if it wanted to address complaints at both stages. These additional failures amount to maladministration. We order the landlord to apologise for this and pay £250 compensation (inclusive of the £180 already awarded). This is to recognise the additional time and trouble caused to the resident pursuing responses and the distress caused by complaints remaining unanswered. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures that adversely affect a resident and the landlord’s remedy is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Learning

The landlord may have avoided failures if it followed our window-related complaints expectations that can be found in our Centre for Learning. This encourages landlord’s to review window related complaints pro-actively and:

Conduct thorough risk assessments based on individual household circumstances ensuring they recognise, respond to and document appropriate actions.
Engage independent surveyors and ensure responses to their recommendations are reasonable, clear, and consistent.
Justify decisions to defer repairs or opt for limited repairs not primarily on cost but in line with legal obligations

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

While we have been able to provide a robust determination, the landlord has not provided supporting evidence of key events and significant decisions. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management says records should tell the full story of what happened. They should clearly state any decision made and the reasons for it, including any decision not to act.

Communication

We have not seen that the landlord regularly updated the resident. Further, it often treated her contacts solely as a request for rehousing due to overcrowding, rather than proactively exploring if her concerns about hazards could be resolved. Further, many of its communications were incorrect or misrepresented.
Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that landlords can avoid failures when they explore the importance of treating a house as a home and foster empathy, and mutual trust.