Peabody Trust (202315741)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202315741 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Peabody Trust |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Leaseholder |
|
Date |
15 October 2025 |
Background
- The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat in a block. She reported a faulty ventilation system to the landlord which she said contributed to mould in her flat. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint as she believes it is a construction issue. She is unhappy with the landlord’s response which said she is responsible for the replacement of the system.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a faulty ventilation system and associated reports of mould.
- We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- The landlord offered reasonable redress for the handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty ventilation system and associated reports of mould.
- The landlord offered reasonable redress for the complaint handling.
We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- In summary, we found:
- The landlord took reasonable steps and gave the resident appropriate advice regarding the replacement of the ventilation system and associated mould. The landlord acted in line with its policies and procedure, however its communication was at times delayed. It offered £150 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by the delays in communication.
- The landlord acknowledged the delays in responding to the complaint, it offered £150 compensation and confirmed the learning it had taken to improve its complaint handling.
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.
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
We recommend that the landlord pays the compensation of £350 it previously offered to the resident, if it has not done so already. The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making this payment to the resident. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
21 February 2023 |
The resident arranged a property survey to investigate mould and condensation in her flat. The contractor’s report confirmed the original extractor fan had been turned off due its “erratic nature and unacceptable noise levels”. As such there was no extraction in the bathroom or kitchen. The contractor recommended replacing the fan but noted the existing one was no longer available, and the replacement would not fit through the existing space. |
|
2 March – 25 March 2023 |
The resident reported the faulty fan to the landlord. She confirmed the contractor’s findings, stated the fan needed to be replaced, and asked it how other leaseholders had replaced their fans. The resident sent several chases for a response between 16 and 25 March 2023. |
|
28 March 2023 |
The landlord said it was aware some leaseholders had issues in the past. It sent the resident an alterations form and said if she wanted to replace the system, it would consider the request via the alteration process. It advised as per the lease, it could only consider non-structural changes. The resident asked how she should proceed given she had a broken fan and mould in the flat. The landlord said it was not aware of any other leaseholders who had replaced the vent system. It asked her to provide details of the proposed system and what structural changes would be needed and said it would escalate the issue internally. The landlord asked for photos of the mould so it could provide advice. |
|
11 April 2023 |
The landlord arranged for a contractor to inspect the property. Two surveys were done, the last being completed on 9 May 2023. |
|
2 June 2023 – 14 June 2023 |
The resident chased the landlord for updates. The landlord said the contractor had confirmed it could relocate the fan and fit a bigger one if the resident agreed. It told the resident the contractor would call her the following week and send a copy of its report and quote for work. It advised if she accepted the quote, she would need to arrange the work directly with the contractor. The resident told the landlord she would not incur the costs for a poorly placed fan, and if it was trying to delay the work and pass the costs to her, she would seek legal advice. The landlord confirmed the ventilation system complied with regulations at the time of build and as per the lease it was her responsibility to repair or replace. |
|
7 July 2023 |
The resident complained to the landlord about the mould, and the need to replace the fan. She said structural work was needed to replace the fan, but the lease states only non-structural alterations would be considered. She was unhappy the landlord had suggested she paid for the works and confirmed she had been living with mould since January 2023. The resident asked the landlord to replace the fan or find a solution for the ventilation system. |
|
8 August 2023 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response in which it:
|
|
31 August 2023 |
The resident escalated her complaint re-iterating the issues raised in the initial complaint and rejecting the compensation offer. |
|
29 September 2023 |
The landlord provided its final complaint response, in which it:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate her complaint. The resident asked for the landlord to replace the ventilation system or provide a resolution. |
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 |
Reports of a faulty ventilation system and associated reports of mould |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- Prior to reporting the issue to the landlord, the resident arranged a property inspection which found the ventilation system to be faulty and in need of replacement. On receipt of contact from the resident regarding the issue, the landlord did not respond in a timely manner, and this led to her spending time and effort pursuing a response. This was not reasonable.
- The landlord informed the resident she should complete an alterations form if she wanted to replace the ventilation system. It confirmed what would and would not be considered. This was appropriate and in line with the lease which states structural changes would not be authorised. However, it would have been helpful to explain that it would consider all health and safety proposals. This would have provided clarity for the resident at an earlier stage. The landlord did not confirm this until its final complaint response.
- The resident told the landlord the fan replacement required structural work therefore she believed it was responsible for replacing it. The landlord sought advice and arranged for its contractor to conduct 2 surveys of the property. Further, it asked the resident for photographs of the mould so it could seek advice. While the landlords actions were reasonable, there was no evidence of a follow up to either of the surveys or the mould issue. This led to the resident spending more time and effort chasing the landlord for an update.
- The landlord advised the lease states the resident was responsible for the repair or replacement of the fan. It suggested the resident sought legal advice if she needed advice regarding the terms of the lease. This was reasonable, however the resident continued to contact the landlord about the lack of progress and mould in the property. In its final complaint response, the landlord quoted its repairs policy and confirmed it was not responsible for the mould, condensation, or the repairs to the fan. The landlord re-iterated its advice given regarding the completion of the alterations form in advance of the fan being replaced. This was appropriate and set the resident’s expectations.
- There were at times delays in communication from the landlord, however this was recognised in the final complaint response. The landlord offered £150 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged its failings and made some attempts to put things right. As such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The resident complained to the landlord on 7 July 2023 but there is no evidence of an acknowledgement. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy which states it would acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint 22 working days after it was received. This was not appropriate and exceeded the policy timescale of 10 working days. Following the resident’s complaint escalation request, the landlord took 22 working days to provide its final complaint response. While this was not in line with the policy timescale of 20 working days, the delay is unlikely to have had a detrimental impact on the resident or the outcome of the complaint.
- The landlord acknowledged the delays in its complaint responses and highlighted learning to improve its complaint handling. It offered £150 compensation but increased this to £200 after the final complaint response when further delays were highlighted. This was in line with its compensation failure for a moderate failure. This was in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged its failings and made some attempts to put things right. As such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.
Learning
- Where there are clear lines of repair responsibilities between a landlord and a resident, the landlord should confirm this to the resident at the earliest opportunity. This will set expectations from an early stage and may reduce avoidable delays.