We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Peabody Trust (202303604)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303604

Peabody Trust

18 August 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 landlords handling of:
    1. Kitchen and bathroom repairs.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She lives in a 3-bedroom house with her 2 children. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s household.
  2. On 4 May 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said there was a mice infestation and holes in the kitchen needed to be filled in where they were getting in. She said the kitchen was falling down and not safe around her young children. She said the radiators were badly positioned, the wrong size, and were causing condensation, and that she wanted the kitchen replaced.
  3. The landlord said on 4 May 2023 that it would log a new complaint for the kitchen and pest issues, as the radiators were already being addressed as part of a previous complaint. The landlord completed a survey of the kitchen and bathroom on 20 July 2023. The landlord told the resident its property team would also need to complete an inspection of the kitchen and bathroom to decide next steps.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord during October and November 2023 to seek an update on the complaint response and the kitchen and bathroom repairs. Following an intervention from us, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 11 December 2023 and issued a stage 1 complaint response on 27 December 2023. It said that, following the surveyor’s recommendation, the kitchen would be renewed during 2024–25 and not 2038 as originally advised. It said it had offered to do holding repairs in the meantime, but said the resident had refused these, but all health and safety repairs would be done. It said it would complete day to day repairs until the kitchen was renewed.
  5. The resident told the landlord on 28 December 2023 that she was unhappy with the stage 1 complaint response. She asked when had her complaint been logged by the landlord as the response was over its deadline. She said the kitchen units were beyond repair due to age and water damage. She said the response did not mention the wiring that the surveyor agreed needed to be moved where her youngest child could not reach it, and nor did it mention the chips in the bath that she had raised. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request on 15 January 2024.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 February 2024, it:
    1. Acknowledged that the resident wanted the kitchen replaced immediately but said the earliest this could be done was 2024–025. It also acknowledged the residents concern that repairs could not be done in the meantime due to water damage, which it said it was committed to resolving promptly.
    2. Apologised for not dealing with the wiring her youngest child could reach and said it would immediately take steps to have the wiring relocated. It also apologised for not addressing the bath repair and said it would arrange an inspection and then take appropriate action for this.
    3. Advised of improvements to help improve communication and complaint handling. It offered the resident total compensation of £350, made up of £150 for its complaint handling delay and £200 for her inconvenience, time, and trouble.
  7. The bathtub repairs were due to have been completed after inspections in July and October 2024, and the kitchen units were replaced in 2024. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint as she was unhappy with how long the landlord took to replace the kitchen units, and the wiring issue had still not been addressed.

Assessment and findings

Legal and Policy Framework

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states landlords are responsible for the maintenance and repair of the structures of their properties and of installations for the supply of water and sanitation. It also obliges landlords to complete repairs in a reasonable timeframe.
  2. Social housing landlords are also required to ensure their properties meet the Decent Home Standard. According to these standards, kitchens should not be more than 20 years old.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it is responsible for internal wiring which it aims to make safe within 4 hours as an emergency repair. It is also responsible for the repair and replacement of kitchen units, which it aims to complete as planned works within 60 calendar days.
  4. The landlord has a compensation and remedies policy. It allows for up to £300 compensation for urgent defects not made safe within 5 calendar days and not made good within 30 calendar days. It also allows for up to £300 compensation for severe complaint handling failures. It allows for up to £650 for inconvenience, time, and trouble depending on the severity of the inconvenience, disruption, and effect of the service failure.

The landlord’s handling of kitchen and bathroom repairs

  1. The landlord did not initially respond to the resident’s complaint of 4 May 2023, where the resident requested works to address a pest infestation, a kitchen replacement, and bath repairs. The landlord appointed a surveyor to inspect the resident’s kitchen and bathroom, which was an appropriate step to investigate the concerns the resident raised in her complaint. The surveyor’s inspection report (20 July 2023) said that the kitchen units would need to be removed to enable holes to be filled in. It recommended that the kitchen be replaced within the next financial year, 2024–25. It also recommended repairs to or the replacement of the resident’s bath.  
  2. The landlord advised the resident that its own inspection team would need to assess the repairs to decide appropriate action. The landlord’s file shows that an appointment was made for 16 August 2023 for a pest and mice related inspection. On 22 September 2023, the landlord told the resident the kitchen units would be replaced in the next financial year and, in the meantime, it would look at options to deal with the current pest issue.
  3. The Decent Homes Standard recommends that kitchens should be no more than 20 years old. The surveyor estimated that the resident’s kitchen was around 30 years old and photographs on file show damage to units and missing drawer fronts. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses (27 December 2023 and 5 February 2024) confirmed that the kitchen units would be replaced in the next financial year (2024–25). This was in line with the surveyor’s recommendation on 20 July 2023 and it was reasonable for the landlord to rely upon the professional opinion of the surveyor in this matter. It is noted that the landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it aims to complete kitchen unit replacements as planned works within 60 calendar days. However, the landlord explained to the resident that it was not currently capable of doing so until the next year, which was understandable given that it was likely to have needed to organise such planned works in advance.
  4. It is also noted that the resident refused holding repairs, which the landlord had offered to do. Nevertheless, the landlord also committed to complete health and safety repairs until the kitchen units were replaced, which was appropriate. The mice infestation was, however, a clear health and safety hazard, which the landlord, as stated in its responsive repairs policy, had a responsibility to address. On 27 December 2023, the landlord stated that pest proofing works have been completed. However, the landlord’s repair logs show it attended the resident’s property again on 23 May 2024 to address further reports of pest infestation and job the notes state “we can’t carry out works to areas that can’t be accessed without removing the kitchen units.” The resident again reported a pest infestation on 30 July 2024 and, on 4 September 2024, the landlord advised the resident it “submitted a quote for pest control/kitchen works which has now turned out to be much larger works than expected.”
  5. The repeated visits without resolution show the landlord’s pest control efforts had not been effective. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs recommends that landlords monitor repairs for repeat issues and review their approach for effectiveness. In light of the multiple pest infestation reports, such a review would have been appropriate. Furthermore, on 20 July 2023 the surveyor noted that kitchen units would need removed to address potential pest access points. Had the landlord followed this up appropriately at the time, it is likely that the health and safety hazard could have been escalated and addressed sooner.
  6. It is not clear why the landlord did not address the resident’s pest control concerns as part of its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. Had it done so, it may have considered that removal of the kitchen units was necessary to block all access points for pests and, given the age and condition of the units, an immediate replacement of the kitchen units may have been appropriate. However, the landlord failed to act on early warnings about the need to remove kitchen units to address pest access points, which raises concerns about how thoroughly it reviewed and responded to the information available throughout the repair process. Instead, the resident and her family experienced prolonged exposure to the pest infestation, a health hazard.
  7. In her stage 2 complaint escalation request (28 December 2023) the resident stated that the landlord did not address the wiring issue in its stage 1 complaint response. She said the surveyor had previously recommended that the wiring be moved. There is no evidence on file of an earlier report from the resident regarding a wiring concern. The resident’s stage 1 complaint on 4 May 2023 does not refer to any wiring concerns and it is therefore understandable why the landlord did not address the wiring concern in its stage 1 complaint response.
  8. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it is responsible for wiring and will respond to potential safety hazards as emergency repairs and will make these safe within 4 hours. However, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s report on 28 December 2023 related to this. Nor is there any evidence that the landlord conducted a risk assessment to determine any necessary steps for this, which would have been appropriate given the potential risk to the resident’s youngest child landlord had been made aware of.
  9. The resident’s wiring concerns were acknowledged in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 5 February 2024, which was appropriate as the resident had referred to them in her stage 2 escalation request. It acknowledged and apologised for its failure to address the safety hazard. It promised to take “immediate steps”, which was also appropriate given the issues raised.
  10. However, on 16 May 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say she had been waiting for “urgent electric works to be carried out at my property for over 6 months. My toddler is able to access the cables in a plastic trunking in the kitchen by easily removing plastic covers.” This and the absence of any mention of this in the landlord’s repair records suggests that no action had been taken to date. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the repair records of any action in response to this further warning from the resident on 16 May 2024, which was a breach of its responsive repairs policy’s requirement for it to ‘make safe’ the potential hazard. This continued lack of action was unreasonable and likely caused resident frustration and worry.
  11. The landlord’s repair records show the resident told the landlord on 30 July and 4 September 2024 that that the wiring still had not been addressed and the landlord raised a works order for wiring to be addressed on 17 December 2024. This was almost a year after the resident reported the wiring concern (28 December 2023) and over 10 months after the landlord committed to “immediate steps” to address it in its stage 2 complaint response (5 February 2024).
  12. This was an unacceptable delay to address the potential safety hazard and raises concerns about its repairs monitoring and oversight of the landlord’s complaint response commitments. The landlord’s repair obligations are set out in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Landlords are required to complete repairs within a “reasonable” timescale and to a standard that keeps the property fit for occupation. There is no statutory definition of a reasonable timescale, but relevant factors include the extent of the repair, availability of parts, and the effect on the resident, while the landlord’s policies required it to make safe within 4 hours or 5 calendar days and to make good within 30 calendar days. However, there is no reasonable explanation for the landlord’s significantly delayed response. The resident has stated that the wiring has still not been addressed however, and an order will be made in this report for the landlord to inspect the wiring for any necessary actions.
  13. In her stage 2 complaint on 28 December 2023, the resident told the landlord that her bath was still chipped. The landlord’s records showed that, on 20 July 2023, the surveyor had earlier noted “Chip on bath, not in a position to harm, recommend enamel repair or just bath replacement.” On 4 September 2023, the landlord apologised to the resident for not being in touch sooner and informed her that bathroom works had been approved, after its records showed the works were raised on 30 July 2024. The repair logs show action to progress further inspections for bathroom repairs on 21 October 2024, 15 months after first reported on 20 July 2023, which was a considerable delay and significantly outside its 60 calendar-day response time for planned works.
  14. In its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for its delayed repairs response and poor communication. It also offered £200 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience these failings caused the resident. These steps by the landlord showed efforts to ‘put things right’ as per our dispute resolution principles.
  15. The landlord identified appropriate learning and improvements, it said a restructure was underway. It said this would help organise and monitor outstanding repairs more effectively to minimise the effects caused by delays. The kitchen units were replaced within the financial year 2024–25 in accordance with the surveyor’s recommendations and the landlord’s commitments in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses.
  16. While the landlord apologised and offered the resident compensation, this did not reflect its delayed resolution of the health and safety hazards related to the pest infestation and the wiring, nor its failure to take prompt action following its stage 2 complaint response, as promised. This prolonged delay likely added to the resident’s frustration and worry.
  17. It is the Ombudsman’s view therefore that, although the landlord has made efforts to offer redress to the resident, its offer was not proportionate to the effect of its above failures on her. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made. The landlord is ordered to apologise to and pay the resident £750 compensation. This replaces the landlords previous offer of £200. This amount is in the higher range of our remedies guidance for maladministration and provides appropriate redress to the resident for the prolonged exposure to the health and safety risks. This is also in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation where there was a failure that had a significant effect on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days and provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days, and that it should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required, it should be agreed by both parties.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s stage 1 complaint dated 4 May 2023 was unclear. The landlord’s file suggests that it may have dealt with pest control issues as part of another response. It also shows that several complaint handlers responded to the resident’s complaint update requests but there does not appear to have been a unified approach, which would have improved the clarity of the complaint handling.
  3. Nevertheless, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint until 11 December 2023, when it told us it would raise the complaint at stage 1, and this was only done following our intervention, which was not appropriate. The landlord provided no explanation as to why the resident’s complaint was not progressed in accordance with its complaints policy and, if it had already responded to all or part of the resident’s complaint, it should have told the resident. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must keep a full record of each complaint, including the date received and all correspondence with the resident. However, the landlord suggested it could see no record of the resident’s complaint about kitchen repairs, which raises record keeping concerns.
  4. Overall, allowing for a 5-working–day acknowledgement period as required by the Code, and a 10-working–day response period, the resident’s 27 December 2023 stage 1 complaint response was delayed by 150 working days, which was an excessive delay. The lack of communication from the landlord left the resident uncertain and having to chase for updates. While the landlord apologised and acknowledged its failure to respond within timescales, it failed to give reasons for the delay in its formal response, which would have been appropriate, demonstrated a transparent approach, and helped to build trust between itself and the resident.
  5. Furthermore, the landlord failed to address all elements of the resident’s complaint, namely pest infestation, in its stage 1 response and, if it had reason for not doing so, it should have explained why. The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy states it can offer compensation for complaint handling failings, which would have been appropriate in the circumstances, however it failed to do so at stage 1.
  6. The resident’s stage 2 escalation request of 28 December 2023 was acknowledged on 15 January 2024, a delay of 6 working days. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 5 February 2024 which, allowing for 5-working-day acknowledgement period and a 20–working–day response period, was a delay of one working day. The stage 2 complaint response was a more comprehensive response. It addressed the bath repair and the wiring safety hazard and promised immediate steps.
  7. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord also acknowledged and apologised for the complaint handling delays and offered £150 compensation for this. In doing so, it showed a willingness to put things right. It also advised of improvements, namely, more complaint handling staff to make sure there were no unnecessary delays in the handling of complaints or outstanding actions. However, the landlord failed to monitor the outstanding actions following its stage 2 complaint response.
  8. In light of the excessive delay and multiple complaint handling failures, therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord was responsible for maladministration and it is ordered to apologise and pay the resident £250 compensation. This replaces the landlord’s offer of £150. This provides appropriate redress for the excessive delay, communication failings, and failure to comply with its complaints policy at both stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaints process. This is also in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation where the landlord made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
  9. The Ombudsman’s special investigation report previously recommended that the landlord review its policy and practice in relation to repair records, communication, complaint handling, and compensation. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the cases already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous recommendations and so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case that would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of kitchen and bathroom repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the further failings identified in this report.
    2. Complete an inspection of the kitchen wiring and provide the resident and the Service with a reasonable timeline for any necessary actions identified.
    3. Pay the resident £1,000 total compensation, made up of:
      1. £750 for delays addressing kitchen pest infestation and wiring and bathroom issues in timely manner.
      2. £250 for complaint handling failings.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £350. The ordered amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.