Peabody Trust (202331799)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331799

Peabody Trust

30 September 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 response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould and associated repairs
    2. Reports of damage to her property
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 10 May 2023. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident suffers from sickle cell disease, a chronic lung disorder, depression, and anxiety. It is unclear if the landlord was made aware of the vulnerabilities at the beginning of the tenancy.
  2. On 4 October 2023, the resident reported damp getting onto her clothes, in the bedroom, hallway and all the windows. On 6 October 2023, the resident reported that the front door lock had separated from the door. On 10 October 2023, the resident reported bedbugs and damp throughout the walls. The landlord arranged a decant on the same day.
  3. On 30 October 2023, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She was unhappy with the condition of the property prior to her moving in saying that there was pre-existing damp and mould. She said that the property condition affected her health. As a resolution to the complaint the resident wanted the front door repaired and the damp and mould treated. She also wanted compensation for the loss of property damaged by the mould and compensation for the additional ill health caused by the property condition since she moved in.
  4. On 21 November 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It provided the resident with the repairs history since she moved into the property. It found no fault with its response to the resident’s repair requests. It said that it would not compensate for damaged items as the resident could claim from her contents insurance. It said that if there was evidence that the damage was caused as a result of its actions it could consider compensation. It said that it would consider the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident when it had completed the repairs.
  5. Between 22 November 2023 and 12 December 2023, the resident emailed the landlord about her complaint. She said the landlord made her feel blamed for the damp in the property. She said that she had not been made aware that she required contents insurance and said that the landlord should authorise compensation for her damaged items. The resident alleged that the property was not adequately cleaned and that the mould was present before she moved in.
  6. On 21 February 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. The landlord reviewed its repair history and found no fault with its response to reports of damp and mould. It accepted and apologised for the delay in repairing the front door. It said that it had referred the resident’s claim for personal belongings to its insurance team. It said that it could have made further efforts to manage the repairs and the resident’s expectations. It also found that it delayed in escalating and responding to the resident’s complaint at both stages of the complaints process. It offered the resident compensation of £750 compromising:
    1. £650 for time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by the repairs delays and communication
    2. £100 complaint handling failures
  7. On 8 May 2024, the landlord emailed the resident and advised that the damaged belongings were not covered under its insurance policy. It said that its complaints team would liaise with her in respect of the contents damage.
  8. On 16 October 2024, the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She had instructed a solicitor to pursue compensation for the affects the damp and mould had on her health. She was unhappy because the landlord had failed to provide her with a response to her claim for damaged personal belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident advised us that the damp and mould has affected her physical and mental health. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she feels her health has been affected by its actions or inactions. However, we can consider distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  2. It is not our role to determine liability for any damage caused to the resident’s possessions. This would be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is our role to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures

The landlord’s response to the residents reports of damp and mould and associated repairs

  1. Its responsive repairs policy sets out a number of different timescales for repairs, ranging from 4 hours for emergency repairs to 60 calendar days for programmed repairs or specialist work. The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy states that it will investigate all reports of damp, mould, and condensation within residents’ homes where it is responsible for repairs.
  2. It is not disputed that there were failings with the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord apologised for the repair delay and offered redress. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of the Ombudsman to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. On 15 September 2023, the landlord raised a repair order to replace the front door. In line with its repair policy, it should have replaced the door within 28 days as a non-urgent repair. The evidence shows that the repair was completed 111 days later on 4 January 2024. While this was significantly beyond its timeframe for such repairs, it is acknowledged that the landlord had advised the resident of supply issues for the materials and the resident was decanted for the majority of the repair. This mitigated much of the detriment that the resident would have otherwise experienced.
  4. Based on the evidence, the first report of damp and mould was on 4 October 2023. The landlord raised a work order on the same date. On 10 October 2023, the resident was decanted as the damp and mould had progressed and the resident had also reported bed bugs. The resident returned to the property on 4 January 2024. While the landlord’s records lack detail of the exact nature of the repairs to the property during the period of the decant, it is not disputed that the damp and mould repairs were carried out satisfactorily.
  5. The resident believes that the damp and mould in the property was present when she moved into the property and the landlord had wallpapered over it. The first report of damp and mould throughout the property was 5 months after the resident moved in. The Ombudsman can only make findings based on evidence. There is no evidence seen that the damp and mould was present before the resident moved in.
  6. The Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repairs. The landlord responding appropriately to the reports of damp and mould by decanting the resident at an early stage once put on notice. The landlord acknowledged its delay and offered £650 for her time, trouble, and inconvenience.

The landlord’s response to reports of damage to her property

  1. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord advised the resident that it would not be liable for the property damage as this would be covered by her contents insurance. This was appropriate advice in line with its compensation policy.
  2. When the resident escalated her complaint, she advised that she was not made aware that she was required to purchase contents insurance when she signed her tenancy agreement. However, the tenancy sign-up checklist that she signed contained a section advising that tenants need to arrange their own contents insurance.
  3. When the resident made the landlord aware that she did not have contents insurance, the landlord referred her claim to its own insurance team and in its stage 2 complaint response it told the resident that it would advise the resident of the outcome. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take.
  4. After the stage 2 complaint response, on 8 May 2024, the landlord’s insurance team confirmed to the resident that her property damage was not covered under its insurance policy. It said that the complaints team would liaise with her concerning her contents damage. While this was disappointing for the resident, it demonstrated that the landlord appropriately considered this avenue for potential compensation for the resident.
  5. Between 8 May 2024 and 11 October 2024, the resident contacted the landlord’s complaints team several times for its position on her property damage. Throughout that timeframe landlord responded that it was considering the request for compensation, and on 11 October 2024 it said it would revert to her as soon as possible. Based on the evidence provided to the Ombudsman, the landlord has not provided the resident with its position with regards to her property damage. This was unreasonable and caused further time and trouble and frustration to the resident in pursuing a response from the landlord.
  6. The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the residents reports of property damage. This is because after the landlord’s insurance company refused the claim, its complaints team failed to provide the resident with a decision if it was re-imbursing her or not for the alleged property damage. It is unclear what further information the landlord required to decide, but its inaction raised the resident’s expectation and ultimately, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord decided on her property damage claim.
  7. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide the resident with its decision on her compensation claim. A further order of £100 compensation has been made in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance to reflect the time, trouble, and frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to decide on her compensation request.

Complaint handling 

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response 6 days beyond its timeframes and its stage 2 complaint response 42 days beyond its timeframes. The landlord apologised for these failings in its stage 2 complaint and offered £100 for this complaint handling failure. This was an appropriate offer when it identified its failings.
  3. The Code sets out that after a complaint response is provided to a resident, outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident. While it is evident that the landlord’s complaints team continued to track the outstanding action of considering the resident property damage compensation, it failed to appropriately communicate its position.
  4. After the insurance team concluded that her property damage was not covered, it is not clear what further information it needed to make a decision. When the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, the landlord had not communicated a decision to about compensation for her property damage. This was unreasonable.
  5. The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s complaints handling. This is because after its stage 2 complaint response the landlord failed to communicate a decision to the resident for an outstanding action of the complaint.

Determination

  1. The landlord has made an offer of redress prior, in its response to the residents reports of damp and mould and associated repairs which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. There was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of property damage.
  3. There was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. It is ordered for the landlord apologise to the resident for its failure to provide a decision on compensation for her property damage.
  2. It is ordered for the landlord to provide the resident with a decision if it is providing compensation for her property damage.
  3. It is ordered for the landlord to pay the resident £100 for time, trouble and inconvenience caused in pursuing the landlord for a decision.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord to review its processes for the determination of liability when its insurers refuse a claim, to identify how it might provide its communications in a timelier manner.