Peabody Trust (202334726)

Decision
Case ID	202334726
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	16 December 2025

Background

1. The resident had physical and mental health issues, which the landlord had recorded. She reported a boiler break down in October 2023 and subsequently made a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the matter. She was unhappy that the boiler repairs took too long and said the landlord had not considered her vulnerabilities when managing her repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. handling of repairs to the boiler.
   2. consideration of the resident’s health and vulnerabilities during its handling of the service request and complaint.
   3. complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler.
4. We found maladministration in the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s health and vulnerabilities during its handling of the service request and complaint.
5. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler

6. The landlord’s policy lacked clear guidance for heating and hot water breakdowns, leading to delays and inconsistent handling. Poor record-keeping and inadequate communication meant repairs were not properly evidenced, timeframes were missed, and the resident’s concerns were not addressed adequately.

The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s health and vulnerabilities during its handling of the service request and complaint

7. The landlord cannot evidence it considered the resident’s vulnerability when managing her repairs. It ignored repeated requests for help, showing poor communication and disregard for the resident’s wellbeing.

The landlord’s complaint handling

8. The landlord failed to meet complaint handling expectations by missing response deadlines, not explaining delays, and providing inaccurate, incomplete responses. It ignored the resident’s request for temporary rehousing and failed to address key concerns, causing unnecessary frustration and inconvenience. However, the landlord offered an apology and compensation to remedy its failings.

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: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 13 January 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £923, made up as follows: £773 previously offered on 23 January 2024 for its handling of the boiler repairs and complaint handling. £150 for the distress and impact caused by failing to consider her vulnerabilities when managing her repair. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 13 January 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so since the date of this complaint, it is recommended the landlord creates a policy on boiler, heating and hot water repairs, or includes a specific section within its repairs policy on these types of repairs. The policy or section should include whether these repairs are classed as emergency or routine and give timeframes for completion.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 October 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said that: her boiler had not worked since 11 October 2023, despite new parts being fitted 6 months before. she had experienced historical problems with her boiler. the cold weather was affecting her physical health, and the delays in repairing her boiler had caused increased stress and blood pressure. according to records she had seen, her immersion heater should have been replaced. She said it was unreliable and was taking over 2 hours to heat water for a bath. she wanted an explanation as to why she had not been provided with a new boiler, and why it had taken 7 months to look at her immersion heater. she wanted the issues to be resolved, and to be temporarily rehoused until repair(s) were completed.
16 October 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it would respond within 10 working days.
13 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. In the response the landlord: apologised for the delay in responding. detailed the timeline of the resident’s reports, its contractor attendance and comments. said no fault had been found with the immersion heater and its contractor had advised that by turning it on and off, the resident was causing the extended water re-heating times. offered £50 compensation for the resident’s time, trouble and disruption.
17 November 2023	The resident asked her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She said: her complaint was about the boiler, not the immersion heater. she had had no heating from 11 to 31 October 2023 despite 3 visits from the landlord’s contractor. the cold had affected her arthritis & recovery from foot surgery. the landlord had delayed responding to her complaint. the heating was still not working as well as before, with the water not reaching sufficient temperature and the radiators not fully heating up. she did not accept the £50 compensation offered. she wanted a new boiler, a new radiator in the living room and additional compensation.
23 November 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request.
12 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response which: detailed the timeline of the resident’s reports and its contractor attendance. It noted the repair was completed on 11 January 2024. acknowledged and apologised for its poor complaint handling and delayed responses. apologised for the delay in diagnosing the repair for the radiators. said it would not replace the boiler, stating that these were only replaced when beyond economical repair. offered £723 compensation, made up of: –       £150 for complaint handling –       £300 for time, trouble and impact –       £273 for no heating (£3 per day between 11 October 2023 and 11 January 2024).
23 January 2024	The landlord increased the complaints handling element of the compensation award to £200, bringing the total compensation offered to £773. This was to reflect “misinformation and subsequent inconvenience”.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 29 February 2024 the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint. After the stage 2 complaint response she remained dissatisfied with the repair delays and complaint handling.

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	The landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler
Finding	Maladministration

9. The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for maintaining heating and hot water systems, as required by section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out repair timeframes based on urgency and complexity, but it does not specify a category or timeframe for boiler failures or loss of heating and hot water, nor does it refer to any separate policy covering these issues.
10. The landlord’s complaint responses included a timeline of boiler repairs, but some actions were not supported by its records, indicating gaps in documenting contractor activity. This hindered our investigation and indicated a record-keeping failure.
11. The resident reported a boiler fault on 11 October 2023. The landlord claimed to have attended on 12 October, but there is no evidence to confirm this. Records only show an engineer visit on 16 November, well outside the 4-hour emergency response and 28-day “next available” timeframe. The landlord cannot evidence that it complied with its repairs policy. Further reports of the boiler breakdown made on 19 and 27 October suggested the issue remained unresolved. The landlord’s records state completion on 31 October, while its stage 2 response asserts the repair was done on 24 October. Although the landlord may rely on contractor feedback, it cannot provide supporting evidence, amounting to a record-keeping failure.
12. Following the 16 November 2023 visit, where no fault was found, the resident had asked for a visit from a senior engineer. This was arranged after she chased on 22 November 2023, and a supervisor attended on 28 November 2023, identifying a heating issue and recommending a power flush. This was not actioned until 2 January 2024 and eventually completed on 11 January 2024, 3 months after the initial report.
13. Our February 2021 spotlight report on complaints about heating, hot water and energy in social housing highlighted that “where a problem with the heating or hot water cannot be resolved quickly, they should ensure that residents have access to temporary heating and provide a clear timescale for repairs”. There is no evidence the landlord offered alternative heat source until after the close of the complaints process.
14. The landlord was not proactive in its communication with the resident about her repairs. She contacted it numerous times without getting an appropriate response. Between 11 October 2023 and 11 January 2024 she had contacted the landlord 17 times. The landlord only responded 8 times, and these were “holding” emails or referencing her complaint status. Its responses failed to address the resident’s concerns or update her on her repair. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report “Repairing Trust” highlights that poor communication often leads to a breakdown of trust, especially when landlords fail to consider how repairs affect health and wellbeing.
15. In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted it had failed in its duties, acknowledged the inconvenience and effort caused to the resident, and offered compensation for that aspect of the complaint. The compensation offer of £573 fell within the Ombudsman’s guidance for moderate impact and reflected daily rates for loss of heating and hot water as set out in the landlord’s policy. This offer was proportionate to the inconvenience and disruption experienced and represented fair and reasonable redress.
16. Had the substantive issue been resolved at this time, we would have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of this aspect of the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord cannot evidence it was resolved at this point, further evidenced by the resident reporting ongoing boiler issues after the close of the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident has made a separate complaint to the landlord for the period covering February 2024 to April 2025. This investigation only considers the landlord’s actions from October 2023 to January 2024 and therefore no additional compensation has been ordered in this case.

Complaint	The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s health and vulnerabilities during its handling of the service request and complaint
Finding	Maladministration

17. Whilst we note the landlord’s current repairs policy has been updated to include an approach for managing repairs for vulnerable residents, at the time the policy did not explicitly address prioritisation for vulnerable or disabled residents. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the impact the heating and hot water breakdowns were having on her physical and mental health and discuss what support might be available to her.
18. As part of her complaint, the resident said that earlier in the year, the landlord had moved her into temporary accommodation after being unable to repair her boiler in a reasonable timeframe. In her complaint she said she did not want to stay in the property without functioning heating for more than 1 week considering the impact on her physical and mental health. The landlord was aware of her health conditions and vulnerability, which she had referenced in her complaint. She asked again about a temporary move on 27 October 2023, but the landlord failed to acknowledge or address her concerns.
19. The landlord’s decant policy states it will offer a temporary rehousing where “the health and safety of the household would be at risk…should they remain in their home.” While the policy does not explicitly allow for discretion, its wording is open to interpretation and could vary depending on individual circumstances and the level of health and safety risk. The landlord had agreed to a temporary move earlier in the year when the resident’s heating was awaiting repair, which would have set her expectations. Regardless, the landlord should have addressed this point in its response and provided a clear explanation of its position to the resident.
20. Throughout the complaints process, the landlord repeatedly failed to respond to the resident’s contacts, leaving her without updates or reassurance. Failing to respond to multiple messages, while being aware of the resident’s vulnerability, showed a lack of commitment to resolving or alleviating her concerns. This was contrary to good practice and we have made an order for the landlord to pay £150 compensation to the resident for failing to consider her vulnerabilities, which is in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

21. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s initial complaint the following working day. It then issued its stage 1 response on 13 November 2023, 21 working days after the complaint was raised. Under its policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code), the response should have been provided within 10 working days. Although the landlord emailed the resident to advise it required an extension, it did not explain the reason for the delay or confirm how long it would need. This lack of clarity was unfair and demonstrated poor transparency.
22. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the delay and offered a meaningful apology, explaining there had been a high volume of complaints and admitting it should have been more engaging. While an apology and compensation can remedy poor service, they are not a substitute for complying with its complaints policy and The Code. The landlord could have done more to respond sooner, and its failure to do so represents a service failure.
23. The stage 1 response did not address the resident’s concerns about her boiler, focusing primarily on its actions regarding the immersion heater. Furthermore, both complaint responses failed to address her request to be temporarily rehoused.. If the landlord was unable to consider this request as part of its actions, it should have made this clear to the resident in the interest of transparency and fairness.
24. The landlord provided its stage 2 response after 34 working days, outside of its 20-working day policy timeframe. It correctly acknowledged the delay, apologised again for its complaint handling failings, and offered £150 compensation for this aspect, which was subsequently increased to £200 on 23 January 2024.
25. Overall, the landlord’s failings caused additional inconvenience, frustration and time and trouble for the resident. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delays and offered £200 compensation which was in line with our remedies guidance. This, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. Our investigation identified that the landlord had not consistently maintained contemporaneous records of repair activities. This impacted its ability to verify its actions, provide accurate and timely responses to complaints or manage its repairs effectively. If it has not done so already, the landlord should implement a robust process for recording its repair activities. Records should include the dates and times of contractor visits, details of works undertaken, outcomes and any follow-up actions required. Adopting this approach will strengthen complaint handling, support investigations, and improve service delivery planning.

Communication

27. In this case, the landlord cannot evidence it communicated adequately. It should be more proactive in keeping its residents updated throughout the repair journey to reduce the likelihood of repair cases escalating into complaints. We note the landlord has recently introduced new service standards for communicating with its residents. It has set out its principle commitments, which include “keeping residents updated” and “being honest and accountable”, and plans to develop more detailed service-specific standards over time, which is a positive step.