Peabody Trust (202223949)

Decision
Case ID	202223949
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	9 April 2026

 

Background

1. The resident has lived in the property, a flat, since 1996. She said she complained to the landlord in 2020 about smells from a neighbouring property. She believes this is due to ineffective ventilation and she wants the landlord to remedy it.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ineffective ventilation.
   2. Associated complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ineffective ventilation. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
4. We found the landlord provided reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures.

 

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord has acknowledged delays investigating reports of ineffective ventilation. While it has provided reasonable financial remedy for these, it has not apologised for delays after its stage 2 response.
6. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint policy or our complaint handling code (the Code). However, it has provided proportionate remedy for this.

 

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 resident for its delay inspecting the ventilation system after the stage 2 response. The landlord must ensure the apology is meaningful, empathetic and has due regard to our apologies guidance .	No later than 07 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence it has paid directly to the resident £325 compensation (previously offered as part of the £650 award for repair delays) for the impact caused by its delays investigating reports of ineffective ventilation.	No later than 07 May 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should survey the ventilation system serving the property to establish if there are any defects. If so, it should provide a plan of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution (if it is responsible for remedying the issue). It should tell the resident the likely timescales to start and finish the work.
The landlord should pay the resident the £300 previously awarded for the impact of its complaint handling failures, if it has not done so already. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on this being paid.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 January to 16 February 2023	The landlord logged a complaint following contact from us. It then telephoned the resident who confirmed her complaint was about smells from a neighbouring property. She believed it was due to ineffective ventilation and asked the landlord to remedy it.
20 April 2023	The landlord hand–delivered the stage 1 response. It apologised for the delay replying and for not inspecting the property’s ventilation system, as agreed during a visit on 23 February 2023. It agreed to another inspection.
31 January 2024	The landlord escalated and acknowledged the resident’s complaint following contact from our office on 9 January 2024.
13 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It agreed to inspect the ventilation system and provide a schedule of work, apologising for not having done so previously. It awarded £950 compensation for the impact of this (and other unrelated repair delays) and poor complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us the landlord did not investigate as promised. She says the single ventilation pipe serving both flats results in smells from smoke, cooking and the bathroom entering the property. She says she needs to activate the bathroom extractor fan 30 minutes before she can use it. She wants the landlord to install a separate ventilation pipe for each property.

 

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 the resident’s reports of ineffective ventilation
Finding	Service failure

7. While the resident said she complained about the issue in around 2020, we have not seen evidence of this. Nor have we seen that she reported it to the landlord before contacting us on 9 January 2023. During this contact she said she believed her neighbours were not using the kitchen extractor fan or opening windows and she could smell their food. We wrote to the landlord that day and asked it to look into this.
8. In the interests of fairness, and taking into account the availability of evidence, we have only considered events from January 2023, when we put the landlord on notice of the resident’s dissatisfaction.
9. A record of the telephone call between the landlord and resident on 16 February 2023 noted the landlord agreed to inspect the ventilation system and explore if it could block smells from the neighbouring property. Its repair policy says it is responsible for repairing and/or replacing individual and communal ventilation systems. It goes on to say it aims to complete non-urgent repairs within 28 calendar days.
10. There is no evidence the landlord inspected the ventilation system within this time frame. It is positive it acknowledged this in its stage 1 response. It offered to do so during the visit of 20 April 2023 but the resident refused access. As the visit was not pre-arranged, it was reasonable that she was unable to facilitate it. It is positive the landlord told her it would inspect the system on 10 May 2023.
11. The landlord inspected the neighbouring property on 10 May 2023 and replaced the kitchen extractor fan. This was appropriate, as the resident believed this may have been a contributing factor. However, the landlord should have inspected the property too. While there is no evidence it did, it appears the issue may have been temporarily resolved as there is no record the resident pursued it again until January 2024, some 8 months later. At that point, she told us the matter was unresolved.
12. It is positive the landlord acknowledged its failure to inspect the property in its stage 2 response. It said it had escalated the issue to a repairs supervisor but it was not addressed. Therefore, its offer to arrange a further inspection was appropriate.
13. It is also positive the landlord awarded compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by this failure. The landlord awarded a total of £650 for repair delays, without attributing specific amounts to the different repairs. For this investigation, we have allocated £325 compensation for this issue. This was appropriate remedy to put right the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s delay up to that point. It was in line with its compensation policy for service failures that cause moderate disruption. It is noted that the resident may have avoided some of the disruption if she told the landlord she was dissatisfied at the first opportunity, before contacting us.
14. However, we have not seen that the landlord inspected the ventilation system or provided a schedule of work as promised in its stage 2 response. It has not acknowledged this or offered any further remedy. We therefore find there has been service failure in its handling of reports of ineffective ventilation. We order the landlord to apologise for this. We do not order it to pay any more compensation, as its award of £325 was in line with our remedies guidance for failures that adversely affect a resident, with no permanent impact.
15. The resident told us the issue remains outstanding and more smells are entering the property. In determining appropriate remedy, we consider if the resident’s actions might have contributed to the situation they found themselves in. While there is evidence the resident pursued the matter on 14 June 2024 and asked for a call back, records show she declined to speak with the neighborhood manager when she returned the call on 17 June 2024.
16. It appears the landlord tried to progress the matter and arranged a survey (albeit we do not know when). However, the resident told us on 4 September 2024 that she was going to cancel it as she was tired of operatives attending.
17. We understand the resident’s frustration that the issue is unresolved. We also understand she spent time and trouble progressing the matter after the landlord failed to investigate the issue as promised in its stage 2 response. However, her actions have contributed to the ongoing delay and prevented the landlord resolving the matter. It cannot do so unless she facilitates investigations and any subsequent repairs.
18. As the landlord previously committed to investigate the issue, we recommend it does so now.We encourage the resident to work with the landlord to resolve the matter and report any issues to it in the first instance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

19. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint policy. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of complaints being logged. This is in line with the Code. However, the Code says the response time limits apply from when complaints are acknowledged and that landlords should do this within 5 working days of receiving the complaint at both stages.
20. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued 54 working days outside the time limit specified in the Code. The landlord said this was because the resident confirmed her complaint was resolved. A record of the call of 16 February 2023 documented the resident agreed to close the complaint, without a formal response, as her concerns were being addressed.
21. While this may have been appropriate if the issue was resolved, the landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged it failed to investigate the ventilation issue. It should have monitored the progress of any investigations and ensured they were complete before closing the complaint.
22. As we have explained, we have not seen that the resident escalated her complaint with the landlord. It is positive the landlord did so after our contact of 9 January 2024. However, it did not tell the resident it had done so until 31 January 2024, 12 working days outside the Code time limit to acknowledge complaints.
23. However, shortly after the landlord told the resident to expect a stage 2 response by 13 February 2024. The landlord replied within this timeframe and the 25 working days permitted within its complaint policy and the Code.
24. In making our determination, we consider the extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
25. The landlord has apologised for delays responding to the resident’s complaint. Its award of £300 compensation for the time and trouble caused by these exceeds the amount recommended within our compensation guidance for complaint responses delayed by more than several days. In such cases we expect awards of up to £100. Therefore, the landlord has provided reasonable redress for the impact of its complaint handling failures.

 

Learning

Knowledge information management (KIM)

26. The landlord has provided sufficient records for us to determine the case. However, it has not provided supporting evidence of key events, including visits. Our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) says records should tell the full story of what happened. Landlords can access guidance, reports, and training to support effective KIM in our Centre for Learning.

Communication

27. While the landlord agreed to investigate the ventilation system in its stage 2 response, it did not tell the resident when it would do so. Our Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains landlords can avoid failures when they let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.