Peabody Trust (202333688)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202333688 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Peabody Trust |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
5 January 2026 |
Background
- The resident reported ongoing damp and mould in her property. She complained about the landlord’s handling of those reports.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord acknowledged failings in its handling of the damp and mould. It apologised, completed the necessary repairs, and offered compensation that aligned with its policy and our remedies guidance.
- The landlord did not address all the issues raised at stage 1 and did not escalate the complaint when the resident expressed continued dissatisfaction. Its compensation offer was not sufficient given the circumstances of the case.
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.
Orders
Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 02 February 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 compensation for the time and trouble caused by its handling of the complaint. The landlord may deduct any payments it has already made for complaint handling failings from this total figure. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. |
No later than 02 February 2026 |
|
3 |
Action Order
The landlord must:
|
No later than 02 February 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £3694.39 offered in its stage 2 response in July 2025 for the failings in its handling of the damp and mould. We found reasonable redress on the basis that it paid this amount. |
|
The resident has informed us that she continues to experience damp and mould. The landlord should contact her to arrange an inspection and organise any subsequent work if required. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
9 March 2023 |
The resident reported damp and mould in all rooms of the property. She said she had bought 3 dehumidifiers to help deal with the issue but was unable to keep up with the cost of running these. |
|
11 December 2023 |
The resident raised a complaint. She said the damp and mould was an issue before she moved into the property. She had been reporting this since 2015, but the landlord had not resolved the problem, and it had impacted her family’s health and daily life. To manage the situation, she bought dehumidifiers which increased her energy costs. She also said the damp and mould damaged her flooring and, although it replaced the floor, the work was poor quality and needed to be redone. |
|
3 January 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response and said it had completed external works. It apologised for the ongoing damp and mould and acknowledged the impact on the resident’s family. It confirmed that internal works would soon begin and that it delivered a dehumidifier on 21 November 2023. |
|
1 April 2025 |
The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord did not include the costs of running the dehumidifiers in its compensation offer and did not consider the impact that damp and mould had on her family, which had resulted in hospital admissions for her children. She also said she was unhappy with how it managed the decant process. |
|
15 July 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said that it could not consider the children’s hospital admissions or the issues related to the decant because these matters did not form part of the stage 1 complaint. It advised her to raise the health concerns with its insurance team and to make further contact if she wished to submit a new complaint about the decant process. It acknowledged that its stage 1 response did not consider the cost of purchasing or running the dehumidifiers. It offered a total of £3,769.39 in compensation made up of:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint. She said that she still had issues with damp and mould in her property, and she was unhappy with how the landlord handled her reports. |
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 damp and mould |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
What we’ve not investigated
- The resident reported poor quality flooring repairs in her stage 1 complaint. However, this was not part of the stage 2 escalation request. She also raised concerns about her stay in temporary accommodation in her escalation request, but the landlord did not address this as part of its complaints process and signposted the resident for this to be considered further. We do not investigate matters that have not exhausted a landlord’s complaints process. We will therefore not assess these as part of this investigation.
- Throughout her communication, the resident referred to how the living conditions impacted her family’s health and well-being. We do not doubt this. However, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for the courts to deal with, or as a personal injury claim. We have considered the distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident and whether the landlord adequately considered this.
What we’ve investigated
- This investigation focuses on the concerns raised in the resident’s formal complaint. We have reviewed the period from March 2023 to July 2025 to ensure the landlord had a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to those concerns through its complaints process. The resident may wish to pursue any current property condition concerns directly with the landlord as a new formal complaint.
- The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it will investigate all reports of damp and mould and it will carry out the necessary repairs. Although its policy does not set specific timescales, its repairs policy says it aims to complete non-urgent repairs within 28 calendar days and programmed or specialist work within 60 calendar days.
- The resident reported damp and mould throughout the property on 9 March 2023. By 5 April 2023, the landlord had begun external works. Between April and November 2023, it carried out several repairs, including repointing, rendering, installing window vents, completing damp‑course works, and improving the drainage flow. These actions followed its damp and mould policy and were appropriate response to the reports raised.
- In its stage 1 response on 3 January 2024, the landlord appropriately set out the actions it had already taken to address the damp and mould and confirmed it would schedule internal works. It said it would offer compensation once it had completed the outstanding repairs. While it could have given a clearer plan for finishing the works, its response showed that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and taking steps to put things right.
- On 4 March 2024, the landlord confirmed its plan to complete extensive internal works throughout the property. These works included replacing water damaged ceilings, treating affected surfaces, renewing skirting boards and pipework, reinstalling radiators, installing ventilation units, and completing associated electrical works. It also arranged temporary accommodation for the resident from April 2024 while the works took place. These were appropriate steps that aligned with the commitments it made in its stage 1 response and with its damp and mould policy, which requires it to move residents to temporary accommodation when a property requires extensive remedial work.
- On 29 April 2024, the landlord made a final offer of compensation of £1,054.42 to resolve the stage 1 complaint. This included £484.42 for loss of home enjoyment in line with its compensation policy that allows a 5% rent refund when service failures affect how a resident uses and enjoys their home. It also offered £120 for the use of dehumidifiers in line with its policy to pay £2 per day for up to 60 days.
- The landlord also offered £450 for time, trouble and inconvenience. This did not align with its compensation policy, which recommends an amount between £451 and £650 where delays had a high impact and caused extensive disruption.
- By this stage, the resident had been living with damp and mould for over a year, and by April 2024 it had only just begun the internal works. This was far beyond its 60‑day timescale for major repairs. The resident had repeatedly reported significant health concerns for her children, so the prolonged delay likely caused considerable distress and inconvenience. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to take this impact into account and offer an amount that reflected the resident’s experience and aligned with its policy.
- The landlord completed the internal repairs by June 2024, and the resident returned to the property. In its stage 2 response on 15 July 2025, it increased its offer of compensation to £850 for time, trouble and inconvenience. It also re-offered £484.42 for loss of enjoyment of the home, made up of 5% of the weekly rent from 13 March 2023 to 31 May 2024. These were appropriate amounts that were in line with its compensation policy for situations where there was extensive disruption that impacted the resident.
- It was also appropriate for the landlord to reimburse the resident for the cost of the dehumidifiers and the associated running costs. It offered £607.97, which matched the evidence the resident provided about the purchase cost. It also increased its offer for running costs to £1,752, which aligned with its policy to consider cases individually when dehumidifier use exceeds 60 days.
- The landlord’s final compensation offer of £1,334.42 for the inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of the home aligned with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance for cases where there were significant failings that had a seriously detrimental impact on a resident. Its compensation award, together with the actions taken to resolve the damp and mould up to June 2024, were appropriate. On this basis, we find that the landlord provided reasonable redress for its handling of the damp and mould reports.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made. The timeframes in its policy mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out our expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code says that landlords must acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days, send stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
- The landlord issued the stage 1 response within 14 working days of receiving the complaint which was in line with the Code.
- However, in her complaint, the resident raised concerns about damaged flooring. She said that rising damp affected her floor and although the landlord replaced it, the work was poor quality and needed further attention. The landlord did not address this in its stage 1 response. This was not in line with the Code, which requires landlords to respond to every issue raised and to give clear reasons for their decisions. By failing to address this matter, the landlord showed that it had not fully understood the resident’s complaint or the outcome she sought. It also missed an opportunity to fully investigate and put things right.
- Following its stage 1 response, the resident continued to express dissatisfaction. She wrote to the landlord on 3 January, 21 February, and 17 and 20 May 2024 saying she was unhappy with the response, the handling of outstanding works, and the compensation offered. Despite this, the landlord did not escalate the complaint. Instead, it issued further stage 1 follow‑ups on 20 February and 29 April 2024. This was not in line with the Code, which requires landlords to escalate a complaint when a resident remains dissatisfied. By failing to do so, it caused unnecessary delays and missed the opportunity to resolve matters sooner.
- The resident expressed further dissatisfaction on 1 April 2025. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 72 working days later, which was outside of the timeframes set out in the Code. It was appropriate for it to apologise for this delay and offer £75 compensation to put things right.
- It was also appropriate for the landlord to explain to the resident that it could not consider a claim for personal injury arising from her child’s hospital treatment. This aligned with its compensation policy, which says that claims for personal injury should be directed to its Insurance Team for assessment. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to clarify in its stage 2 acknowledgement on 6 June 2025 that it would not consider this issue as part of the complaint, and to provide her with the relevant contact details to make an insurance claim.
- As part of her stage 2 complaint, the resident raised concerns about how the landlord handled her stay in temporary accommodation. In its response, it told her this was a new matter not covered at stage 1 and therefore asked her to contact it again if she wanted to make a new complaint. This did not follow the Code, which requires landlords to record new issues as separate complaints and investigate them. The resident had already shown clear dissatisfaction, so it should have logged the new complaint. By not taking this step, it created additional time and trouble for the resident to resolve her concerns.
- Overall, the landlord failed to fully put things right for the resident. It did not address all the issues she raised at stage 1, and it did not escalate the complaint when she made her dissatisfaction clear. This likely caused her distress and inconvenience and delayed her ability to bring the complaint to the Ombudsman sooner. As such, we have made a finding of maladministration.
- While the landlord offered £75 for its delay in issuing the stage 2 response, it did not acknowledge all of its failings. Its compensation policy says that an offer above £151 is recommended when there has been a failure to follow the complaints policy which led to the complaint not being investigated correctly. Considering this, we order the landlord to pay the resident an additional £125 for its complaint handling failures. This amount aligns with our remedies guidance for cases where there was a failing by the landlord that had an adverse impact on the resident.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord maintained good records of the efforts it took to resolve the damp and mould in the property.
Communication
- Part of the resident’s complaint was regarding communications from the landlord. It could consider improving how it keeps residents updated, particularly when repairs are complex or when new issues arise during a complaint.
Complaint handling
- The landlord did not address all issues at stage 1, did not escalate the complaint when the resident remained dissatisfied, and delayed its stage 2 response. It could improve by ensuring all issues are identified early, escalating complaints promptly, and logging new concerns as separate complaints in line with the Code.