From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Peabody Trust (202217418)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217418

Peabody Trust

11 July 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Roof leaks.
    2. Fly infestation.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association and the building is owned by a freeholder, represented by a managing agent.
  2. Following repairs the landlord completed on the roof in January 2021, the resident reported a new roof leak when it rained in May 2021 and February 2022. The landlord arranged a roof and guttering survey and completed external and internal repairs by 1 August 2022. On 14 August 2022, following a heavy period of rainfall, the resident reported the leak had reappeared on the opposite side of her living room to where the repairs had been completed.
  3. The resident formally complained on 25 November 2022, saying she had suffered leaks since December 2018, which had caused damp, mould and damage inside the property, and the presence of flies. She said she had chased the landlord and its contractor to address the new leak, but appointments were cancelled. She said she did not receive any formal response addressing its repairing actions or a new survey being completed.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 December 2022 which said:
    1. It acknowledged there were delays in starting repair works since the resident reported leaks when it rained.
    2. It had to remove the scaffolding erected in December 2022 as it was not the freeholder of the building, and it needed the freeholder to complete investigations and repairs.
    3. It could not make good the internal damage until the leak had been repaired.
    4. The resident should use fly killer to spray the flies, and this was not its responsibility under its pest control policy.
    5. It apologised for the level of service provided and said it would monitor the progress of the repairs with the freeholder. It would also offer compensation once the repairs had been completed.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 19 September 2023 as the roof repairs were outstanding. She wanted a full investigation of the repairs since December 2018. She said she had initially asked the customer service telephone line to escalate her complaint on 25 August 2023 but this did not happen.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 20 October 2023 it largely reconfirmed its stage 1 response. It acknowledged the longevity of the leak issues since December 2018 and accepted various elements of service failure, including failure to: update the resident; monitor progress; recognise the freeholder’s responsibilities; and manage the repairs effectively. It said it had arranged a new survey to evidence the freeholder’s liability for the roof repairs which would be completed as soon as possible. It would award compensation when the repairs and remedial works had been completed, but offered £350 for its complaint handling failures, and took learning from the complaint to improve its complaint handling and repairing actions.
  7. In the resident’s referral to us in November 2022 she asked for the repairs to be completed and compensation for the landlord’s failings.

Assessment and findings

Roof leaks

  1. While the resident has experienced leaks since 2018, she did not seek our assistance until November 2022. We have considered this context as background to the current complaint. However, in the interests of fairness, and given the availability of evidence, our investigation is focused on events from May 2021, when the resident reported the roof repairs completed in January 2021 had failed. We have then considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports:
    1. Between May 2021 and February 2024, when it established freeholder responsibility.
    2. From February 2024 onwards, once liability had been established.
  2. In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted its poor service levels in responding to the resident’s reports of a leak between May and June 2021 and February and August 2022. While it completed repairs itself during this period, it acknowledged it should have escalated her concerns internally on each occasion, and monitored the repairing actions due to the frequency of her reports. It also accepted that it should have referred the repairs to the freeholder and established the freeholder’s liability to complete the repairs sooner. Therefore, the question before us is whether those failings amount to maladministration and, if so, whether any redress remains outstanding to put things right.
  3. We have seen evidence the resident regularly chased the landlord for updates to complete surveys and repairs to resolve the leaks between May 2021 and October 2023. It was, therefore, appropriate that the landlord accepted it should have communicated more proactively with the resident to manage the situation and her expectations.
  4. The landlord also acknowledged it should have identified the freeholder’s responsibility to complete the roof repairs sooner. While the landlord showed willingness to resolve the repairs itself before August 2022, this was due to its own misunderstanding of its repairing responsibilities. Additionally, it acknowledged it provided an insufficient survey report to the freeholder in January 2023, which did not establish the freeholder’s liability for the roof repairs. This caused further delays until February 2024, when it obtained an additional survey and established the freeholder’s liability.
  5. The available evidence supports the failings highlighted by the resident and accepted by the landlord. The landlord did frequently communicate with the freeholder’s managing agent between January 2023 and February 2024 to establish the freeholder’s liability following its initial survey. We recognise the difficulties experienced by the landlord as there were delayed responses which prolonged the time the repairs were outstanding. However, the failure to establish liability for the repairs caused the resident to be left in the repairs process without any timeframe to expect resolution of the issues for approximately 31 months.
  6. The landlord appropriately applied its damp and mould policy, when it offered to move the resident to a temporary property in October and December 2023, and asked her to reconsider her decision to decline the temporary move in January 2024. While we cannot determine if a move to a temporary property was necessary, it was reasonable the landlord attempted on several occasions to move the resident.
  7. When the resident declined to move to temporary accommodation, the landlord should have considered what actions it could take to manage the damp and mould in the property while the repairs were outstanding. The landlord’s damp and mould policy is silent on what actions it could take, and there is no evidence that it considered any suitable alternatives. This might have included a mould wash or temporary redecoration while it waited to establish the freeholder’s liability for repairs. This was unreasonable and did not suggest it took proactive action to improve the resident’s living conditions on a temporary basis.
  8. Once the landlord had established the freeholder’s responsibility for the repairs, the freeholder obtained a further survey report in April 2024. This confirmed the costings of works and it entered the section 20 consultation process. This was in line with its statutory duty under the Housing Act 1985. The landlord was unable to progress matters until this process had finalised and the repairs were completed. It was appropriate that in April 2025, when roof repairs had been completed, it arranged and completed internal repair works at the property.
  9. Considering the context of repeat leaks over 7 years, the impact of the issues on the resident’s living conditions, and the level of different failings she experienced, the landlord’s handling of the reports amounts to severe maladministration. We acknowledge that it has apologised and taken learning from the complaint, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes. It also confirmed it would pay compensation once the repairs had been completed (as requested by the resident on 12 August 2023).
  10. In our assessment of the compensation which should be paid to the resident, we have only considered the period of 31 months before the freeholder liability was established. While the overall delay was substantial and caused the resident significant distress, time and trouble, there were mitigating factors towards the end of the repairs process. There were communication delays by the freeholder and its managing agent in establishing liability, the management of the repairs was outside the landlord’s control once the freeholder was responsible, and the section 20 consultation process was ongoing. As a result, the landlord should not be expected to offer remedy for this period.
  11. The landlord’s compensation policy did not cap the compensation it would award for a serious disruption. However, it provided guidelines outlined as £1,000 plus, for distress and inconvenience, and £251 to £400 plus, for time and trouble. Therefore, where the resident’s issues were outstanding for approximately 31 months the compensation policy supports that she should be awarded £1,000 for distress and inconvenience. This is also in line with our financial remedy scale for severe maladministration.
  12. While the landlord’s policy compensated time and trouble, we do not believe £400 was sufficient to remedy the impact caused to the resident, and she regularly chased the landlord for updates over a prolonged period. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £800 compensation for time and trouble, in line with our financial remedy scale. This is because the landlord’s failings exacerbated the situation and significant redress was needed to put things right.

Fly infestation

  1. The landlord’s pest control policy explained that it was the resident’s responsibility to manage a fly infestation. While we recognise the resident’s frustration that she experienced flies in the property because of the roof leaks, the landlord appropriately applied its pest control policy when it explained it was her responsibility to manage, within its December 2022 response.
  2. The landlord acted appropriately to signpost the resident to use a fly spray to manage the presence of flies. As a result, there was no maladministration in relation to this point.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 December 2022, 13 working days after the resident’s complaint. This was not in line with its complaints handling policy timescale of 10 working days.
  2. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 August 2023, and chased the landlord to accept the escalation on 19 September 2023. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 response until 20 October 2023, approximately 2 months after the first escalation request. This was not in line with its complaints handling policy timescale of 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s delayed complaint handling was unreasonable and left the resident in the complaints process without a clear timeframe to expect a resolution of her complaint. However, it then took the opportunity of the stage 2 complaint to acknowledge its complaint handling failings, apologise, and offer £350 for the resident’s time and trouble. This approach was in line with our dispute resolution principles and the level of redress offered accords with our own remedies guidelines.
  4. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the £350 compensation offered is considered reasonable. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of her formal complaint. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the resident the £350 compensation, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of roof leaks.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of fly infestation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint.

Orders

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any arrears) £1,800 compensation, as follows:
    1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the roof leaks.
    2. £800 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of the roof leaks.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £350 compensation offered during the complaints process, if not done so already. This recognised failures in its complaint handling and the reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid.