Peabody Trust (202218975)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218975

Peabody Trust

31 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident has been the assured tenant of the property, which is a flat in a block (the block), owned by the landlord, for approximately 10 years. He lives there with his child. He has reported having health problems including mental health difficulties.
The resident reported damp and mould in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. He reported it again in early 2022 but the landlord’s contractors could not gain access to the property. The landlord says it carried out works at the block in June 2022 and that the completion report said there was no significant damp or mould in the property.
On 17 November 2022 the resident complained formally to the landlord. He said there were leaks in the kitchen and sitting room, causing the property to suffer from damp and mould. He said the leaks were making him ill and ruining his food and furniture. He also reported leaks in the bathroom which caused the electrics to become unsafe. He later asked the landlord to move him as he felt he and his child were at risk.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 December 2022, when it apologised for the damp. In its stage 1 response of 9 January 2023 it said the leaks might come from a neighbour’s balcony. It had tried to schedule an appointment to inspect this balcony but had been unable to reach the neighbour. It apologised for any distress the resident had suffered.
The landlord visited the neighbour’s property on 10 January 2023 but found no leaks. It told the resident in May 2023 that it intended to carry out extensive works to the exterior of the property and the neighbour’s balcony in an effort to resolve his leak, damp, and mould problems.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 7 June 2023. The landlord escalated the complaint on 4 July 2023 and provided a stage 2 response on 21 August 2023. It set out the events that had occurred over the previous 6 months. It said it had completed the exterior works on 21 July 2023 and intended to inspect the property shortly to ensure they had been successful. It would then calculate the amount of compensation payable to the resident. It apologised for its failures in complaint handling and offered £250 for these.
In his referral to us the resident said he wanted increased compensation and for the leaks to be repaired. He also wanted a commitment that, should the leaks then reappear, the landlord would move him to another property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident says he experienced problems with leaks, damp, and mould for many years which are still ongoing. However, he did not make the formal complaint under investigation here until November 2022. He did not report any problems in the 6 months prior to that. Therefore, in the interests of fairness, our investigation is focused on events from the formal complaint onwards.
We must also give landlords an opportunity to respond to allegations before we investigate. This means we often will not look at events which occur after the landlord has given its final complaint response. In this case, the landlord completed extensive works to the block in July 2023 shortly before the stage 2 response. For a short while, the landlord and resident believed this had resolved the leaks.
For that reason, although it later became clear that the problem was not resolved, our investigation is focused on events up to August 2023 when the landlord sent its stage 2 response. This is because the landlord had, at this point, carried out works to resolve the problem in response to the complaint.
If the resident wishes to complain about matters occurring after the stage 2 response, he should complain to the landlord again, giving it a chance to respond formally to his complaint about these subsequent events. If he is dissatisfied with its response, he can return to us.
In his original complaint to the landlord, the resident also complained about problems with the communal heating and hot water system in the block. However, in email correspondence with us in June 2024, he confirmed he only wanted us to investigate his concerns about leaks, damp, and mould. We have not, therefore, investigated the other matters.

The resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould

The resident reported leaks, damp, and mould in his complaint of 17 November 2022. He said the leaks were severe and that he had injured himself by slipping on water after returning home one day. A landlord operative attended the same day but could not resolve the problem. It appears the landlord failed to recognise that there were 3 separate leaks, into the bathroom, kitchen and living room respectively.
Another operative attended on 21 November 2022. The landlord then raised a job to investigate whether a leak came from the neighbour’s flat. At this point, water was pouring into the resident’s bathroom resulting in the bathroom electrics being unsafe.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to complete non-urgent repairs within 28 days. While the landlord did not meet this timeframe, it was not solely responsible for this delay. It is clear that it was difficult to contact the neighbour in order to gain access to their property, and this was beyond the landlord’s control.
However, in his original contact in November 2022, the resident said water was pouring through the ceiling and he had to collect it in buckets which needed frequent emptying. The bathroom electrics were unsafe and he said the leaks had caused damp and mould which he was concerned about the effects of for him and his child. We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered the family’s health or whether a move to temporary alternative accommodation would be necessary in the circumstances.
Even after the resident expressly asked the landlord to move him to temporary accommodation in January 2023, it did not consider doing so. Instead, in the stage 1 response of 9 January 2023 it said it could not deal with such a request and advised him to contact its customer hub. This was an unhelpful response which did little to restore the resident’s confidence in it. He had made a request for alternative accommodation and the landlord should have confirmed its position directly or made the necessary referral itself. Residents may have more difficulty navigating landlords’ internal structures and assistance should be offered where possible. This was a failure in service.
From the limited evidence we have seen, it appears that, during its first visit in November 2022, the landlord tried to solve the leak in the bathroom. It seems it also identified the leaks in the kitchen and living room at this point. In its stage 1 response the landlord recognised there were several leaks and undertook to find their sources and resolve them. It said it would then redecorate and calculate an offer of compensation.
On the evidence, it took some time to arrange for repairs to take place. Works to the exterior of the block and, in particular to the neighbour’s balcony, took place between April and July 2023. Clearly, this was a complex problem and the landlord was not wholly responsible for the fact they took some time. However, it failed to act with sufficient urgency and take a proactive approach to resolving all the issues at the property at an early stage. It also failed to offer the resident compensation.
We published a spotlight report on Damp and Mould: It’s Not Lifestyle in October 2021, which acknowledged that damp and mould are significant problems across the social housing sector. We expect landlords to take a proactive approach to address these potentially serious issues. Among the actions we recommended to help landlords to get a grip on the problem are to:
1. Identify opportunities for increasing diagnosis within buildings, such as examining neighbouring properties, to ensure their early response is as effective as possible.
2. Review, alongside residents, initial response to reports of damp and mould.
3. Implement a data driven, risk-based approach with respect to damp and mould. This will reduce over-reliance on residents to report issues, help landlords identify hidden issues and support landlords.
4. Consider their current approach to record keeping and satisfy themselves it is sufficiently accurate and robust.
5. Ensure responses to reports of damp and mould are timely.
On the evidence we have seen, the landlord failed to follow this guidance. There is no record that it inspected the property at the earliest stage or fully assessed the extent of the problem. This was despite the fact it knew the resident had reported leaks, damp, and mould twice in 2 years.
There is also no record that it discussed the full extent of the problem with the resident. These failures may have contributed to the piecemeal nature of the works which took place over the next year. The landlord resolved the bathroom leak in January 2023. However, it did not address the leaks in the kitchen or sitting room at that time. It came to believe that the source of the leaks was a crack in the neighbour’s balcony. It arranged for extensive works to take place on the block’s exterior between April and July 2023. However, whilst they appeared to resolve the leaks in the short term, they were not effective over a longer period.
Had the landlord taken a more proactive approach it might have solved the problems sooner. It should have discussed the leaks with the resident. It should have surveyed the property, determined the number of leaks and investigated their causes. It should also have investigated neighbouring properties sooner.
At the time of the stage 2 response in late August 2023, the landlord accepted that there had been “regrettable delays with the repair process alongside poor communication”. However, it also said its contractor’s view was that there was no remaining damp and mould and it believed it had resolved the leaks.
The evidence the landlord provided shows that this was not the case. The resident reported in September 2023 that leaks continued. While this is not a matter for this investigation (see paragraphs 10 and 11 above) this does demonstrate that the landlord’s response to the complaint was not ultimately successful.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord again said it would pay compensation when it could assess the total impact of its failures on the resident. We have seen no evidence that it has provided any compensation to him at this stage, nearly 2 years after the stage 2 response. This is a severe failing.
Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that landlords should recognise their failings and make amends as soon as possible. While it apologised, its response beyond that was inadequate. Overall, its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould has been extremely poor. We have made a finding of maladministration to recognise its failures.
Our guidance on remedies says that a finding of maladministration may merit an award of between £100 and £1,000 compensation. This recognises the distress and inconvenience suffered because of the events. Given the length of time the works were outstanding, the landlord’s failure to properly consider a temporary move or any financial redress, and the fact its actions did not fully resolve the leaks, our award in this case is at the higher end. We consider that £800 compensation is proportionate to the impact on the resident between November 2022 and August 2023.
The resident has also claimed that many of his belongings have been damaged by the leaks, damp, and mould. We do not award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. However, as the landlord has accepted it is responsible for the damp and mould, it should at least have invited him to claim on its public liability insurance for the damaged items.

Complaint handling

The resident complained formally on 17 November 2022. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 14 December 2022, 19 working days later. This was a breach of its complaints policy (the policy) which said it should provide a complaint acknowledgment within 5 working days.
The landlord then provided its stage 1 response on 9 January 2023, a further 15 working days later. The policy says the landlord should provide complaint responses within 5 working days of the acknowledgment and 15 working days of the complaint. It provided its response 34 working days after the complaint, which was a failure.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 7 June 2023. The policy says residents should request an escalation within 10 days of the stage 1 response. Clearly, the resident made his request significantly later than this. Nonetheless, the landlord did agree to the escalation.
However, before it did so, it put pressure on him not to take the complaint further. It its email of 13 June 2023 the landlord said “I appreciate that you are frustrated with the length of time this has taken to resolve, however please bear in mind that escalating your complaint at this point, may further delay any updates or progress, due to a 20-day response time from our stage 2 team. I would recommend remaining at stage one until the repairs are completed and if you’re still not happy with the final resolution offered to you at stage one, you can further request to escalate.”
This was inappropriate advice. The landlord should not have suggested that a request to escalate might delay the repairs. This gave the impression that the landlord’s repair actions were in some way dependent on the resident’s decision to escalate which should never be the case.
It is possible the landlord intended to advise the resident to wait for an award of compensation for the service failures it had admitted in its stage 1 response. However, if this was the case, it should have paid him a sum and allowed him either to escalate his complaint or make a fresh one. The Code says landlords should make amends at the earliest opportunity. The landlord failed to do so and this was a failing.
On 4 July 2023 the landlord told the resident it had still not escalated the complaint as it had been attempting to complete the repairs first. It said it would escalate the case that day and he would receive a stage 2 response within 20 working days. In fact, it provided the stage 2 response on 21 August 2023, 34 working days after it had passed on the escalation request and 54 working days after the resident requested the escalation. This was a clear breach of the policy.
The landlord’s failures in complaint handling were severe enough to merit a finding of maladministration. Our guidance on remedies says that compensation awards for maladministration should generally be between £100 and £1,000 with awards for complaint handling failures being at the lower end of this scale. In the stage 2 response, the landlord offered a total of £250 in recognition of its complaint handling errors.
We consider that this offer went some way towards addressing the failings identified in this report. Further, it demonstrated that the landlord was seeking to be fair and put things right, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. However, the landlord’s response did not acknowledge, or accept error in, its attempt to delay escalation of the complaint. We have, therefore, found that there was service failure in its complaint handling and ordered it to carry out staff training in that regard.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
1. Sent a formal letter of apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Paid the resident £800 compensation for its failures in its handling of his reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
3. Invited him to claim for damaged items against its public liability insurance.
4. Reminded complaint handling staff that it is not appropriate to tell residents that complaining may delay repairs.