Peabody Trust (202328183)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328183

Peabody Trust

20 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of a leak entering the property.
2. Service charge queries.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association. The landlord is the freeholder. She moved into the property, a 1-bedroom flat in a purpose-built block, in August 2018. The block was constructed in 2015. The resident has disclosed health issues, which the landlord is aware of.

Reports of a leak entering the property

On 16 November 2022, the resident reported that a leak was coming through her ceiling when it rained. The landlord informed her that it would need to gain access to the balcony of the flat above to investigate the cause. It is not clear when the landlord completed this work. It is also not clear from the landlord’s records whether any contractors attended between November 2022 and January 2023.
On 12 June 2023, the resident reported that the leak had reoccurred. Between July 2023 and October 2023, the landlord attended to complete repairs and repaired the resident’s ceiling. She made a complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs on 18 October 2023, she said she had already complained at least 6 months earlier.
The landlord opened a surveying case on 2 November 2023 and on 11 January 2024 it attended with the developer to assess where the leak may have been coming from. At the inspection, the landlord found that while one balcony had been replaced, the leak could have been coming from one of two other flats. It noted that it would replace the decking on the balconies and reseal them. On 15 January 2024 a contractor visited but was unable to gain access to the balcony above.
The resident made another complaint on 22 January 2024 about the landlord’s handling of repairs, and her service charge queries. The landlord responded on 31 January 2024. It’s stage 1 response said:
1. Its policy was to consider complaints regarding incidents in the past 6 months however given its failure to resolve the leak it accepted the complaint.
2. A sufficient investigation into the leak had not taken place in the first instance, the repair was also not tested afterwards. This led to a reoccurrence of the leak.
3. It apologised for the level of service the resident received, and said it had given feedback to the contractors regarding the quality of work.
4. The service charge query was responded to and then closed.
5. It upheld the complaint and offered compensation of £600 made up of:
  1. £50 for delays in the repair process comprising of £25.00 for each month over the 28-day service level agreement
  2. £200 for poor standard of repair
  3. £200 for poor customer service
  4. £150 for poor complaint handling
Later that day, the resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process as she was unhappy with the level of compensation and felt her queries had not been resolved. She also said that the communication from contractors was inconsistent as they were either not attending when promised or attended without warning.
Throughout February and March 2024, the landlord inspected several balconies to try and trace the leak. Internal records indicate that the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 7 March 2024 after she contacted it for an update. It apologised for the oversight and escalated the complaint. In April 2024, the landlord completed a dye test, and the developer completed additional repairs though it is not clear from internal records where this work was carried out.
On 22 April 2024, the landlord sent the resident a formal acknowledgement of the stage 2 complaint escalation. The same day, the resident told it that on the last contractor visit the hole in her ceiling had been made larger and covered with a plastic sack. She said the bag had buckled in the rain, caused water damage to her sofa and carpet, and was causing black mould. She also indicated that she had not received a full breakdown of service charges, refunds, or overcharges.
The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 response on 29 April 2024. It said:
1. If the resident felt that the landlord was liable for damage to personal belongings, she could submit an insurance claim.
2. It had completed flood and dye testing and determined that the source of the leak was a patio door set in the property above. The door had been installed on a beam above the cavity area, and the frame unit sealed without the necessary clearance for water to exit through weep holes. This has led to water tracking back into the property which affected the resident’s property.
3. It was awaiting a quote for replacement of the patio door, and once the leak had been resolved it would repair her ceiling.
4. It reiterated its response to her service charge query from 16 April 2024 and stated that service charges had increased across the housing sector due to inflation and changes in regulations. It advised her to contact the First Tier Tribunal if she wanted to dispute the service charges.
5. It acknowledged the following complaint handling failures:
  1. Stage 1 complaint was provided above the 10-day timescale.
  2. The stage 2 escalation request was not processed, and escalation did not occur until after the Ombudsman contacted it.
6. It awarded compensation of £725 comprising of:
  1. £100 for the delay in the stage 1 response.
  2. £100 for the delay in escalating the complaint.
  3. £50 for a lack of coordination with the repair team at stage 1.
  4. £25 for the delay in providing a stage 2 response.
  5. £450.00 for distress and inconvenience.
The resident responded the following day to say that the landlord had not addressed her complaint regarding the 2021-2022 service charges in its response. It apologised for this and said that as she did not raise a dispute within 6 months of receiving the actual bill it could not investigate. It directed her to the First Tier Tribunal if she wanted to dispute the level of service charges.
On 16 May 2024, the landlord approved a quote for the patio doors. The landlord’s notes indicate that between May and September 2024 it contacted the resident in the flat above frequently to arrange access but was not successful. During this period, the resident chased the landlord often and advised that the leak was worsening. On 15 November 2024, the patio door was replaced in the flat above and a quote was ordered for the resident’s ceiling.
The resident reported that the leak had returned on 27 November 2024. In January 2025, the landlord proposed installing a leak diverter to minimise any additional damage to the property however the resident confirms that this was never installed. Internal records say that the landlord plans to strip and relay the balcony in the flat above to try and locate and fix the leak.
As of the date of this report, the landlord has not provided us with confirmation that the leak has been repaired. The resident has told us that she has experienced considerable distress, worry and inconvenience because of the leak and the hole in her ceiling which has been there since April 2024. She remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs and in its complaint handling.

Service charge queries

The landlord responded to the resident’s request for a breakdown of the following service charges on 17 April 2023:
1. Metal gate repair – the landlord stated that a refund was being processed as the damage was caused by a delivery van. It also listed other related costs from this incident which would be refunded.
2. Make safe a broken door – the landlord said that this job had been categorised incorrectly, and the charge was for the repair of a leak.
3. Clean and disinfection resample – the landlord confirmed that this was for cleaning, disinfecting, and testing the communal cold-water tanks.
4. Replacing key fobs and security – The resident asked why the cost for this was so high. The landlord confirmed that it was upgrading the system to increase building security.
On 22 December 2023, the landlord opened a case relating to the resident’s service charge queries as the resident remained unhappy with the response to the 2021/2022 queries. She also had questions regarding the service charges for 2022/2023 and the landlord responded on 9 January 2024. The queries included:
1. £5,932.27 for a door entry system – the resident asked how this related to the charge on the previous year’s invoice. She said that the previous works had not been completed to the specification agreed by the residents, incurring more cost.
  1. The landlord provided an explanation for the upgrade to the door entry system and said that it could not offer a refund as it offered value for money given the technological improvements.
2. £11,280.25 for fire system maintenance – the resident requested a copy of the report for the works completed. She maintained that there should already have been an allowance for this in the budget given the importance of fire safety.
  1. The landlord provided a breakdown of the costs and advised that for specific receipts the resident would need to make a request under s22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
3. £2,049 for caretaking – the resident stated that this was unreasonable as access to the building was provided by residents. She also said there was no permanent caretaker on site, or any out of hours management staff and communal cleaning was not being completed regularly.
  1. The landlord confirmed that its cleaning provider had confirmed there had been no gaps in cleaning. It would also provide a cleaning schedule.
4. £490.44 for a broken communal light – the resident asked for an explanation for the cost of this light.
  1. The landlord confirmed this was for 2 sensors outside one flat, and adjustment to 4 other lights.
5. Lock change and attendance to restore water – the resident said that this charge did not fall on the residents as the plumber could not gain access to the plant room and left.
  1. The landlord refunded this charge as it said that the contractor should have had a means of entry.
6. £1,172.23 for a water pump repair – the resident stated that her neighbour managed this repair as the initial repair failed. The resident felt that the original repair fee should be removed.
  1. This charge was refunded by the landlord as the incorrect operative had been sent to site and it was not able to explain why.
On 16 April 2024, the landlord responded to additional service charge queries, and explained its responsibilities listed in the leaseholder guidance. It also confirmed that it had refunded the resident’s service charge account the amount of £250.34. The resident chased this refund on 8 May 2024 and the landlord told her it was having some problems with its online system but was in the process of resolving it.
On 26 July 2024, the landlord told the resident that the refund had been processed, but that her account from 2022/2023 was in arrears. It said that withholding service charge payments was a breach of her lease, even if she disagreed with the charges. It gave her the details of the Leasehold Advisory Service (LAS) who could provide her with advice on service charges.
On 23 September 2024 she confirmed that she had paid the charges, and did not want to accept the compensation offered during the complaint process as her issues were not yet resolved. She remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication around service charges.

Assessment and findings

Reports of a leak entering the property

The lease and welcome letter provided by the landlord state that the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure of the building, and any communal facilities. As leaseholder, the resident is responsible for repairs to the interior of the property, her belongings and internal decoration.
The repair records provided to us by the landlord were not detailed. While it listed the original repair report it did not clearly state:
1. What date contractors attended.
2. What was done when they got there.
3. Any follow up works.
As a result, there was insufficient evidence for us to determine when certain elements of the leak investigation were conducted, such as the flooding and dye tests. It was also unclear what works were done at each other property that was identified as potentially being the cause of the leak. The landlord referred to three other flats in the internal notes, but it is not evident what work was done in each one.
Following the resident’s report of the leak, once it was established that it was a structural issue the landlord contacted the developer for support with the repair. Given the building was only 5 years old when the leak was first noticed in 2020, this was appropriate as there was a possibility that the issue was a latent building defect.
Internal notes indicate that the landlord conducted dye and flood tests in March 2024, but it is unclear what the results were. The resident requested a copy of the results, but we have not seen evidence that she received them. Internal records show that, at various stages, the leak was thought to be coming from:
1. A plumbing issue from the flat above.
2. A defective roof.
3. Balcony flooring.
4. Defective seals around patio doors and windows.
5. Patio door sets.
The landlord and developer completed a joint survey of the property and the surrounding properties to establish where the leak was coming from. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of the survey, so we have relied on internal records which refer to the findings. It is not clear how conclusive the findings of the survey were, as the leak was thought to be coming from different areas at various times.
The landlord’s records indicate that at least 2 other flats were having similar leaks to the one reported by the resident. The resident has said the same to the Ombudsman. There is a strong possibility that this is a larger issue affecting several properties. We will therefore make an order for the landlord to update the affected residents once it has diagnosed and repaired the leak.
The resident informed the landlord of the distress and worry the situation was having on her due to chronic health conditions as early as November 2022. She also informed it that she had undergone several operations, one of which took place during the period investigated. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged this or considered service adjustments such as increased contact or amended response times.
She also expressed concerns that the hole in her ceiling was causing mould which could negatively affect her health given her pre-existing conditions, and it may potentially cost her more money as she could lose heat through it. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience and delays with the repairs. It did not directly respond to her concerns regarding the heat loss or her the impact due to her vulnerabilities.
The resident also felt that she had to chase the landlord for updates throughout the period investigated, contact the Ombudsman, and contact her MP. The landlord should have regularly updated the resident so she knew when to expect updates on the repairs.
It is clear from the records that the landlord was struggling to make successful contact with the resident’s neighbour, and this delayed the patio door replacement. The lease states that leaseholders allow the landlord, other leaseholders, and any associated contractors to access the property to either repair a neighbouring property or repair any structures which affect a neighbouring property. There is no evidence that the landlord informed the neighbour that allowing access was a requirement of their lease.
The lease also states that the landlord has the right to enter the property with a minimum of 48 hours’ notice, to conduct repairs, replacements, or renewals of items. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord gave notice to the neighbour, instead it tried to arrange access directly with them. Records indicate that the neighbour spent a lot of time out of the country. The decision to rely solely on the neighbour voluntarily providing access will have negatively impacted the resident as she had an open hole in her ceiling for an extended period, and an ongoing leak.
We recognise that this issue was frustrating for the resident due to the length of time it was ongoing, the number of contractors and surveyors who attended, and the poor communication from the landlord regarding its repair plans. We also understand that with purpose-built blocks with communal facilities and individual leaseholders it can be more difficult to trace faults, and access to other properties can be more difficult. However, the landlord should have been more decisive in its approach to gaining access to the neighbour’s property and exercised the terms of its lease.
It is not clear why the landlord did not offer to install the leak diverter when it originally made the hole in the ceiling, especially when it became evident that it was having difficulty accessing the neighbour’s property. When it was mentioned, the resident had to ask how long it would be there for and what function it would serve. The landlord should have clearly explained this to the resident when it proposed it as a solution. There is no record of why this was not installed and the resident confirmed it was never mentioned again.
The landlord’s decision not to reinstate the ceiling until it had found the leak was understandable in the short term, however, the fact that the hole in the ceiling is still there at the date of this report is unacceptable. The resident has told the landlord on multiple occasions that the plastic sheeting has bulged due to the leak, and that black mould has grown due to the dampness in the area. The landlord should have planned to monitor the hole at regular intervals to ensure it is not causing any additional damage and communicated this to the resident.
During the complaints process, the landlord awarded £450 compensation in relation to its handling of repairs, and its overall customer service. There is no evidence that it revised this offer or considered offering additional compensation when it became apparent that replacing the patio door had not resolved the issue. The issue had been ongoing so it should have reviewed the situation again and decided whether it would offer additional compensation given the additional impact on the resident. The compensation offered was not proportionate to the overall level of inconvenience, time, trouble, and distress experienced by the resident.
The resident has informed us that in March 2025 the landlord appointed an external contractor to complete leak detection works. Scaffolding was installed to access the balcony above as the neighbour would not provide access.We have not been provided with any confirmation of the leak being repaired or completion of remedial works to the resident’s ceiling.
Our investigation has highlighted that several flats within the block are having similar issues. We will make an order at the end of this report for the landlord to complete additional leak investigations to the building to ensure that similar leaks affecting other properties are managed effectively.
There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs. It did not communicate effectively with the resident throughout the repairs process, and she has experienced a leak for 4 years. The hole in her ceiling is still there and has led to mould growth. The landlord did not consider the resident’s health conditions when considering how to approach the repairs and updates. There is no evidence that it exercised the terms of the lease with the neighbour, which has led to additional inconvenience for the resident. The landlord’s offer of compensation did offer some redress, but it was not enough to mitigate the impact of the failures on the resident given that the leak was not repaired.

Queries about service charges.

The landlord’s service charge policy from the period investigated states that it will issue an estimate of service charges at the beginning of each financial year, and then an actual statement of service charges annually. Depending on the actual costs, each service charge item may be in a surplus or deficit which will be reflected in the actual statement.
The policy also states that it sets service charges annually using planned capital costs, information based on the current cost of services and resident feedback. We have not been provided with a copy of the estimated or actual service charge statements from 2021-2022 or 2022-2023 so cannot comment on whether the information is clear in the first instance.
Confusion could have been avoided if the landlord’s repair records had been clearer regarding incidents such as the replacement of the front door. If its records had been clear regarding the cause of the broken door, it could have avoided adding charges to the statement which it would later remove. It also told the resident that it had incorrectly logged several items relating to communal repairs and provided an explanation for the charges.
The resident queried several larger costing items in the service charge statements, including the fire alarm system and key fob entry system. The landlord apologised for not clearly breaking down the budget costs for the fire alarm system and clarified that the cost was for the ongoing maintenance as well as the installation.
It did not address the resident’s service charge queries from 2021-2022 as it said residents must raise any disputes within 6 months of receiving the actual service charge statement. The resident stated in her emails that she had challenged the charges in 2022, but the landlord noted that there had been no disputes.
Based on the evidence provided we cannot say whether the resident raised a dispute for 2021-2022 within the 6 months deadline. However, the landlord should have advised of the deadline in writing in line with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which sets out that a demand for the payment of a service charge must be accompanied by a summary of the rights and obligations of tenants in relation to service charges. Neither the landlord’s service charge or complaints policy from the time gave any guidance on how or when residents can dispute charges, and did not signpost the resident to the Act.
It is positive that it explained the charges, however it should consider providing more information in the statement or providing a supporting statement to define any added chargesto minimise confusion.
We have seen evidence that the landlord had agreed to refund £250.34 of incorrect service charges, which it applied to the resident’s account on 12 February 2024. However, the landlord’s online system was displaying incorrect information at the time which added to the frustration for the resident.
The landlord signposted the resident to the LAS when discussing the arrears on her service charge account. This was positive; however, it should have done so when she originally made the complaint about how her service charges had been handled and communicated. This would have ensured she was aware of what information she was, or was not entitled to, and allowed an impartial third party to discuss the case with and seek advice.
After it received her request for receipts relating to service charges, the landlord told the resident to make a request under s22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It did not say how she should do this. The landlord should have complied with her request without asking for a separate application. The Act states that a request is duly served on the landlord if it is made to the person who receives rent on behalf of the landlord or an agent of the landlord as named in the rent book. It is reasonable to consider the service charge team as agents of the landlord for this purpose. The landlord must then make the information available within a month for a further 2 months.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries. It did explain the service charges after the resident made her complaint, but it should have been clear about what each charge included on the statement. It also failed to correctly log several rechargeable repairs which led to more confusion and to residents being charged for a replacement door which was not their responsibility.
The landlord has provided us with a copy of its current service charges policy, which states that it will:
1. Provide statements of anticipated expenditure for services to which residents must contribute.
2. Provide clear and transparent supporting information to explain larger or unexpected increases in service charges.
We will therefore make no orders relating to these areas of the landlord’s service charges policy.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It promises to respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. It directs residents to the Ombudsman should they be dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint.
The stage 1 response was sent 73 working days after the original logged complaint, which is 63 working days over the policy timescale. It apologised for this in the response and awarded compensation of £150 for poor complaint handling.
The landlord provided the stage 2 response 62 working days after the resident made her request for escalation. This is 42 days over the policy timescale. While the landlord informed the resident that it was experiencing high demand for its complaints team, it did not provide any updated timescale for when the complaint may be responded to. This led to the resident feeling that she needed to chase the landlord throughout this time and approach the Ombudsman for assistance.
It offered compensation at stage 2, but it was set out in a different format to stage 1, which was confusing. It also offered £100 at stage 2 for the delay in responding at stage 1. This should have been offered at stage 1 to ensure clarity.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can award up to £300 for poor complaint handling. Its original offer of £150 compensation for poor complaint handling was consistent with its policy and it offered a further £275 for complaint related issues at stage 2.
It was confusing that it defined the compensation differently at each stage. At stage 1 it referred to complaint handling failures as one definition, but at stage 2 it broke down each failure in complaint handling and awarded a separate amount for each. It should have used the same method for breaking down compensation at both stages to ensure consistency and minimise any confusion.
The landlord failed to escalate the complaint to stage 2 when the resident originally requested it, and once it realised its mistake it asked her again for her reasons for escalating. It should have proceeded with the escalation based on her initial escalation request.
In total, the landlord awarded £425 compensation for inconvenience, time and trouble relating to its complaint handling across both stages of the complaint. This was consistent with its policy, and with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It also apologised for the delays she had experienced. However, there is no evidence that it considered her health issues when investigating whether there were failures in service relating to the outstanding repairs.
Considering the above, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, however it made a proportionate offer of redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolved the complaint. A finding of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the landlord pays the £425 compensation offered during the complaints process.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble associated with the leak into her home. This includes the communication she has received throughout, the hole which was left in her ceiling for 11 months, the additional mould build-up, and the leak being ongoing. The apology should be made by a member of the landlord’s senior management team in a format of the resident’s choosing and a copy should be provided to the Ombudsman to demonstrate compliance.
2. Remove any mould which has accumulated in or around the ceiling void. It must also set a schedule to monitor the mould, and prevent any future build up in this area where possible. It must provide proof of completion to the Ombudsman to demonstrate compliance.
3. Pay the resident £1000 made up of:
  1. £900 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience relating to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak.
  2. £100 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience relating to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries.
  3. This is in addition to the £950 compensation offered for distress and inconvenience, poor customer service and poor communication during the complaints process, which should also be paid to the resident.
4. Evidence of the above payments must be provided to the Ombudsman.
Within 10 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Ensure the leak is diagnosed and repaired if it has not done so already.
2. Implement a schedule of ongoing monitoring and agree this with the resident.
3. Provide a written report containing the diagnosis, repair plan and monitoring schedule to the resident and the Ombudsman.
Within 12 weeks of this report the landlord must arrange a full leak detection survey of the complete building structure, prioritising any other properties experiencing similar issues. The survey must include, but not be limited to:
1. Balconies
2. Patio doors
3. Glazing
4. External brickwork and pointing
5. External fascia
6. External guttering
7. Roofing
The landlord must then:
1. Create a repair plan for any highlighted defects.
2. Provide a copy of the repair plan to any affected properties within the building along with a timescale for completion.
3. Provide copies of both the plan and survey to the Ombudsman.
4. If the survey finds that there were latent structural defects relating to the building’s original construction, it should communicate this to the developer. A copy of this communication should also be provided to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the £475 compensation it offered for inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its complaint handling failures. This is in addition to any compensation ordered above. Proof of payment should be provided to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should consider if it needs to take any action in relation to other resident who may have been impacted by the leak.