Peabody Trust (202325539)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat with her adult son and daughter. She reported leaks into the property and raised concerns about the resulting damage and repairs. Later, she reported a fault with the bathroom door handle/lock, which the landlord added to the list of outstanding repairs. The resident has been represented by her son in the handling of her complaint. For ease, both the resident and her son are referred to as ‘resident’ in this report.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to reports of leaks into the property and its handling of the subsequent repairs.
3. The landlord’s response to reports of repair to the bathroom door handle/lock.
4. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

5. We have found there was:

1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to reports of leaks into the property and its handling of the subsequent repairs.  
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to reports of repair to a door in the property.
3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Response to reports of leaks into the property and its handling of the subsequent repairs.

6. There were delays in identifying the cause of the leaks and completing follow-on repairs, despite early reports and inspections. This caused prolonged inconvenience and damage to the property. Although the landlord acknowledged service failures and offered compensation, repairs remained outstanding for an unreasonable period. This required the resident to carry out some work themselves. However, this was put right when the landlord offered an increased amount of compensation to reflect the full impact of the prolonged issue.

Response to reports of repair to the bathroom door handle/lock.

7. The landlord responded promptly when the bathroom door lock issue was reported, but the repair was incomplete and left the door unable to lock. Despite logging the job, the repair was never finished. The overall compensation offered appropriately covered this outstanding repair.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord did not respond to the complaints in line with its policy and procedures. It significantly delayed in providing a response at stage 1. It delayed in accepting the stage 2 escalation, until our involvement. However, the landlord offered appropriate compensation to acknowledge these failures.

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 investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

9. When the leaks were reported on 7 November 2022, the property should have been attended within 4 hours, but there is no evidence this happened. The resident recalls an electrician arriving in the evening, about 8 hours after the report. Though the landlord’s records logged the visit the next day and did not record the time of the visit. This delay caused distress and inconvenience as the resident had to manage water ingress. By the time of the visit, the leak had stopped. It was positive that the contractor made the lights safe for health and safety reasons. The cause of the leak was not identified until late November 2022. This was a detriment to the resident as they reported further leaks during that month. Causing electrical faults, a two-day power outage, and additional property damage.   
10. Inspections to the property between December 2022 and March 2023 identified that works were required to make good ceilings and walls in the kitchen, hallway, living area, bedroom, and lino floor covering in the hallway. However, there was an unreasonable delay in arranging any make-good works.
11. It was positive that the stage 1 complaint response in March 2023 acknowledged the delays and service failures in handling the leaks. Then in June 2023, the landlord offered £450 compensation in recognition, which was reasonable. Although the resident accepted the offer at the time, there is no evidence that this was paid to the resident or credited against the rent account to reduce arrears (as per the landlord’s policy).
12. It was unreasonable that make-good repairs did not start until 10 July 2023, when only a ceiling was filled and sanded, and left most of the work outstanding. This caused further detriment to the resident, who had to keep chasing and ultimately escalate the complaint. We also acknowledge from the limited notes that the contractor had attempted two visits in August and September 2023 but was unable to gain access. The contractor also told the landlord they had been unsuccessful in contacting the resident by phone and email, so they had closed the work order. We have not seen evidence to show the attempted contacts and whether the resident had been made aware of the arranged visits. 
13. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of the leaks and repairs. In January 2024, the stage 2 response offered increased compensation of £650 to reflect the service failures in the handling of the leaks (along with the £300 for complaint handling, offer totalled £950). Where the landlord admits failings, our role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. We consider this offer was fair and proportionate at that time, as it aligned with our own remedies guidance. The stage 2 response also said it would arrange a new contractor to carry out the works.
14. The continued delays in arranging the works in the months that followed show the landlord did not learn sufficient lessons. We recognise this was a very frustrating time for the resident, as they explained that the prolonged issues affected the family and made them reluctant to invite guests because of the property’s poor condition. The resident told us, that in January 2025 they decided to attempt some decorating themselves and arranged for someone to fit some leftover lino. The resident said the works were not finished to a good standard.
15. In addition to the previously offered £950 (not yet paid), the landlord has since offered a further £750 for the resident’s further time and trouble. Bringing the total compensation offer to £1,700. As noted, £300 was paid to cover the complaint handling, leaving £1,400 for the remaining issues. We consider £1,200 relates to this aspect of the complaint, which is in line with our own remedies guidance. This shows the landlord acknowledged significant distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident. We are satisfied the landlord has recognised the issues and put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. We therefore find the landlord offered reasonable redress.
16. Also, the landlord has provided evidence that they contacted the resident on 18 November 2025 and confirmed they will arrange an inspection to assess outstanding make-good works. This proactive step is commendable as it demonstrates a commitment to resolving the remaining issues.

17. Although this was not part of the stage 1 complaint, the resident raised a concern about the bathroom door lock when their son became locked inside. It was positive that the landlord attended to this matter promptly. However, the resident told us that the quick fix left a hole in the door, and it could no longer be locked. It was also positive that the landlord added the job to the list of outstanding works caused by the leaks. 
18. It was positive that the landlord addressed the unresolved door lock repair it in its stage 2 response and confirmed it would complete the repair. This did not happen, and the resident described how this caused inconvenience and embarrassment when visitors came. However, considering the overall compensation of £1,700 offered. Taking away £300 for the complaint handling and £1,200 for the issues with the leaks and subsequent works, leaves £200. This amount is reasonable and sufficient to cover the door lock issue, and aligns with our remedies guidance. We therefore consider the landlord offered reasonable redress.

19. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024).
20. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of the timescales.
21. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint promptly in early December 2022. However, it was unreasonable that the response was not issued until late March 2023.  
22. The landlord did not follow the code when it failed to respond to the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction from September 2023. This led to avoidable delays in progressing the complaint. The resident experienced detriment as they were inconvenienced and frustrated by having to chase and contact us to be heard. It was only after our involvement that the landlord accepted the stage 2 escalation in January 2024, which demonstrates poor customer service.
23. The stage 2 response put things right by addressing the overall service failures in the complaint handling. The landlord offered £300, which is the maximum amount stated in its own compensation policy for complaint handling. We consider this was fair and in line with our own remedies guidance. We therefore find the landlord offered reasonable redress.

Learning

24. It was commendable that the landlord said they would take steps to improve future complaint handling and stage 1 responses by learning from their own failures. This shows a willingness to learn from the complaint and prevent similar issues reoccurring.
25. Staff should be reminded of the Code’s requirements. Including the need to progress to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction.
26. The landlord should ensure its internal complaint process is used effectively to resolve issues at the earliest opportunity. Complaints should be treated as a chance to put things right promptly and prevent prolonged inconvenience for residents. Timely action and clear communication would have avoided the delays and escalation seen in this case.