Peabody Trust (202331367)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331367

Peabody Trust

04 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 reports of subsidence, leaks, damp and mould and its proposed compensation.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy of a 2-bedroom flat on the top floor of a converted house. The tenancy agreement began on 17 June 2022.
Shortly after she moved in the resident reported that plastering work had not been completed, and her MP told the landlord there had been a leak which had only partially been resolved. In August 2022 the MP and resident told the landlord about cracks in the property and her concerns about subsidence. The landlord arranged a survey in September, which identified possible subsidence and minor cracks causing some water ingress, but also a “concerning large diagonal crack above the front door, which has caused deflection to the door and window.” The survey did not make any specific recommendations apart from referring the issue to the insurers, which is what the landlord did.
The resident complained to the landlord in May 2023. She said there had not been any further action following the survey, and she was experiencing damp and mould in the property.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 13 July 2023. It acknowledged the resident’s safety concerns and said its insurance team was monitoring the situation. It said it would ask its surveyor to assess whether it could make temporary repairs to stop the water ingress. It said it would consider compensation for the resident when the situation was resolved.
The resident escalated the complaint in October 2023. She said she had experienced poor communication from the landlord, some repair work had been done but left incomplete, and the overall uncertain situation had gone on too long. In November 2023, a section of the ceiling in the communal area of the building had either collapsed or was close to it.
The resident approached the Service for advice in December 2023, and we asked the landlord to respond to her escalation request.
The landlord sent its final response letter on 28 January 2024. It said the outcome of its insurer claim was still pending, which would affect the property’s repairs and itsfinal compensation. In the meantime, it offered compensation of £950, consisting of £650 for the delayed repairs and £300 for delays in its complaint handling. It said it would review the compensation again once it heard from its insurer, and it would consider a loss of a room payment to reflect the resident’s loss of 2 rooms due to damp and mould.
The resident asked the Service to investigate her complaint on 18 January 2024. She informed us in February 2025 that the landlord had repaired the leaks, which stopped the water ingress in March 2024. She said she remained concerned for her safety due to the structural cracks and was dissatisfied with the offer of compensation, which she said did not reflect the adverse effect on her and her child.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

The resident complained that her health had been affected by exposure to mould as was chasing the landlord to carry out repairs. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish links between a landlord’s actions or inaction and alleged health impacts. Matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to a court or liability insurance process to determine. This is in line with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, which says the Ombudsman may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. Because of that the resident’s health concerns are not considered in this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of subsidence, leaks, damp and mould and its proposed compensation.

The tenancy agreement reflects the landlord’s repair obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to repair and keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof, gutters, windows, doors, and common parts.
The resident’s complaint to the landlord in May 2023 centred on her concern that no action had been taken about the cracks in her home following the survey in September 2022. In response the landlord explained the matter was now with its insurers, who were monitoring the situation. As the only recommendation from the survey was to refer the issue to the insurers the landlord’s response was reasonable.
The evidence shows the landlord had informed the resident of the survey outcome in October 2022, saying the insurers would visit to assess the property. However, there is no evidence of a visit or any further action until the resident made her complaint. In its responsethe landlord acknowledged its poor communication and lack of action. It apologised but said it could not offer compensation because the case was still ongoing. That was counter to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code, 2022) which states that a complaint outcome must be given to the complainant when it is known, “not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed.”
The resident had also reported in her complaint that water ingress was causing damp and mould in her home. She said the landlord had done a mould wash, but the mould returned because the underlying cause, which she said was the roof gutters, was not being fixed. The landlord responded to this by acknowledging the water ingress which it said it would be monitoring. While the 2022 survey had noted water ingress from minor cracks, the resident was referring to it from a different source. The landlord’s complaint response does not give the impression that it was aware of that difference, as its explanation relates to the insurer’s monitoring of the subsidence issue. This uncertainty and the landlord’s failure to offer compensation meant its initial complaint response was incomplete and unreasonable.
The resident escalated her complaint in October 2023. She complained again about a lack of information from the landlord about its intentions. She acknowledged the landlord had done some repairs, but said the work was often left incomplete. She was unhappy with the time the landlord was taking to resolve damp and mould and the cracks. In response the landlord gave her an update, but that was only to say the insurer was still considering the matter, and resolution could only be provided once they had decided the appropriate course of action. The update was appropriate, except that the resident was clearly making a complaint, and the landlord should have treated it as such.
The resident asked again to escalate her complaint on 2 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged her request the same day. On 24 November it told her it wanted to extend the response deadline. It apologised and said it would send its response by 11 December. The evidence shows the landlord spoke with the resident on that date and that she asked it to hold the response until the repair work was completed. It agreed to pause its response for 2 weeks (until 27 December). The landlord’s handling of the escalated complaint over this period was reasonable, and in line with the Code and the resident’s wishes.
The landlord’s records show that in its discussion with the resident on 11 December 2023 she clarified her issues of complaint and desired outcomes. These included:
1. Offering compensation for the delayed repairs and loss of use of two rooms in the property because of damp and mould.
2. Resolving a communal door canopy which the notes say the landlord inspected and found to be “about to fall down”.
3. Replacing communal carpets.
4. Remedial work to parts of the resident’s home which had been affected by damp and mould.
The note of the call also states a further mould wash had been done in October 2023, and that the roof gutters (which the resident had explained in May she believed to be the cause of the water ingress and mould) had been repaired and cleaned in November.
The resident approached the Service for assistance in early January after the amended complaint deadline had passed. The landlord subsequently sent its final complaint response on 18 January 2024.
In its response the landlord set out the history of the resident’s repairs and the actions it had taken. It agreed that it had provided a poor service and acknowledged the significant impact on the resident. It explained the next steps it would take to address the damp and mould and the insurance claim, apologised for its failings with both the repairs and the complaint. It explained steps it had recently been taking to improve its broader services, which included investigating why and where failings had been occurring and increasing staff levels and training.
The landlord offered the resident £650 compensation for its poor repairs service, and £300 for its poor complaint handling. It acknowledged the resident’s request to be reimbursed for not being able to use two rooms in her home but said that as there was an active insurance claim, it needed to await the outcome before it could review the request.
When failures are identified our role is to look at whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this we consider whether the redress was in line with the landlord’s policies, the Code, and the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The Code sets out that when things have gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. Any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result.
The evidence clearly shows delays in the landlord’s responses to the repair issues the resident had reported. For example, she included her concerns about the gutters causing water ingress and mould in her complaint in May 2023, and the landlord’s notes show the issue was addressed in November, 6 months later. The resident’s complaints about frustrating communication with the landlord are apparent from the evidence, such as when it did not escalate her complaint when she asked in October 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was also incomplete.
The redress offered by the landlord included its recognition of its service failings, apologies, explanations of what it had learnt from the complaint and how it would improve its services, and its commitment to address the remaining repair issues and consider reimbursement for any loss of room use. With one exception, these were all relevant and appropriate actions to put things right and provide reasonable redress, and were in line with the Code and the Principles.
The exception relates to the resident’s concerns about the safety of her home. While the original survey had not raised any immediate risks with the structure, the very fact of the potential subsidence was understandably a source of worry. The resident asked more than once for the landlord to risk assess the property to provide reassurance for her. There is no evidence of it doing so. In the landlord’s final complaint response it acknowledged that one of the outcomes the resident was seeking was that it verifies the property was safe to live in. It did not address the matter. The pending insurance claim obviously restricted the landlord’s actions, but the lack of response, and the lack of consideration of possible ways to reassure the resident was an important outcome to the complaint which the landlord could and should have addressed (such as by meeting her to discuss her fears).
The amount of compensation offered, for both the landlord’s repair and communication failings and its poor complaint handling was significant. £300 for poor complaint handling was reasonable in the circumstances of the case, especially given that its handling after November 2023 improved. £650 for the overall repair failings was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in cases where there are failings with significant impact on a resident, but which the landlord has acknowledged and attempted to put right. However, as the landlord did not address the resident’s request for reassurance about the property’s safety, it left that part of her complaint unresolved.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord with respect to its handling of the resident’s reports of subsidence, leaks, damp and mould and its proposed compensation.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £1300. This is comprised of:
1. £350 for its failure to address the resident’s request for reassurance about her home.
2. £950 offered in the landlord’s final complaint response (if it has not already been paid).
Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord must either confirm (and show evidence) that the subsidence and related problems have now been resolved, and that it has considered and made a decision about the resident’s unusable room request. If the issues have not been resolved the landlord must arrange a meeting with the resident (subject to her agreement) to give her the opportunity to voice her current concerns. It must then provide her with a written response to her concerns along with a plan of action to address them.
Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to the Service by their respective deadlines.