Peabody Trust (202336108)

Background

1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her property is a top floor, 2-bedroom maisonette. Her bedroom is on the upper level, and her sitting room is on the lower level. She has made recurrent reports of leaks from the roof since 2014 at times of heavy rainfall. She states the landlord installed a box gutter in 2018, but this has not stopped the leaks. She also states window replacement works in 2022 exacerbated the issue. In May 2022, the landlord responded to a previous complaint and in September 2022, it completed works to the roof and gutter. The resident asked us to investigate as the landlord had not stopped the leak, and her decorations and floorboard had been water damaged. Her weekly rent for 2024-25 was £178.83 and her current rent is £184.17 per week.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of penetrating damp including reports of leaks from the roof, box gutter, and downpipes.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of penetrating damp.
5. There was service failure in the resident’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord offered reasonable financial redress for the resident’s loss of enjoyment of her living room and bedroom, and distress and inconvenience, at the time it responded to the complaint. However, it delayed in then implementing the identified works and did not update the resident during this period.
7. Having agreed to complete flooring works, the landlord failed to do so.
8. The landlord also did not fully address all aspects of the resident’s complaint, in particular her request to redecorate the property.
9. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in accordance with the required time frames. However, it failed to confirm its position on compensation for decorations. It also did not update the resident on the substantive outstanding works as it had committed to do.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

10. The resident has made recurrent reports of leaks from the roof since 2014 at times of heavy rainfall. She attributes this to the condition of the gutter. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord’s obligation to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the Premises including drains, gutters and external pipes. In line with its obligation, its roofing contractor carried out repairs in 2022. In May 2022, the landlord replastered and redecorated the resident’s flat. Also in May 2022, in response to previous complaint, it offered £500 compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience. The landlord carried out further repairs to the roof and gutter in September 2022.
11. On 29 June 2023 and 8 September 2023, the resident reported water ingress again. She explained water accumulated and spilt onto her window cill due to a narrow downpipe to a box gutter, which got blocked. She added there were cracks in the gutter lining when the window was replaced in 2022. The resident stated as a result there was swollen plasterboard and wooden floorboards, peeling paint and bowed skirting in the affected area of her bedroom. A contractor decided the landlord should inspect; however, the landlord did not carry out a surveyor visit until 19 February 2024. This was 6 months after the initial report and after the resident had made a complaint. As such, this was an unreasonable delay.
12. At the inspection of 19 February 2024, the surveyor identified:
    1. Repairs were needed to the flashing in the box gutter.
    2. The gutter was hindering water draining to the box gutter. It should remove the guttering above the resident’s window.
    3. There was no damp in the bedroom of front room; however, the flooring in the front room was bowed and the downstairs window required an overhaul.
13. The landlord advised the resident of the proposed works in the stage 2 response. It also agreed to patch repair her floor covering. It said if the resident agreed the works, it would proceed with implementing them. It also advised it would keep the complaint “active” until the works were specified and completed. The landlord proposed the works 12 weeks after the inspection and after the resident had escalated her complaint. Again, this was an unreasonable delay.
14. In the stage 2 response, the landlord offered appropriate compensation for its failures up until that time. It offered a room loss allowance as the resident was partially able to use the living room due to the bowed flooring. It also considered she was partially able to use the bedroom due to the leaks. It was reasonable that it compensated from September 2022 as works carried out then were unsuccessful. Its Compensation Policy allows 20% of the rent for the bedroom and 10% of the living room; however, it may offer a lower percentage if there is only the partial loss of a room. It was in line with the policy and reasonable given the periodic reports that the landlord offered compensation of 10% for the rooms. The landlord also offered a further £1,000 in respect of the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience. This was a reasonable offer for its failures up until that time, in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy at the time. £650 was the maximum award for “Extensive Disruption”.
15. However, the landlord then delayed in instructing its contractor. It did not then instruct its contractor until 22 August 2024. This was over 3 months after the stage 2 response. This was an unreasonable delay especially as it advised it would monitor the works until completion to close the complaint. The landlord did not update the resident during this period too. On or around 6 September 2024, the contractor installed scaffolding but there is no evidence it completed works at this time.
16. Regarding internal works, the landlord advised the resident to make a liability claim to its insurer to cover decorating costs and the damage to her flooring. Alternatively, regarding the floor covering, it advised that it would carry out a patch repair to the floor covering. The landlord’s repairs policy states “where it is alleged that we are at fault for any damage to furniture, decoration or personal belongings we should take appropriate steps to investigate and establish whether we have caused or exacerbated any damage through our actions or inactions before referring the issue to insurers. Where it is proven damage has been caused directly through us or our contractors’ actions, we will provide appropriate redress and take the necessary steps to put this right”. By advising the resident that she could make a claim against its insurer for the flooring or that it could repair damaged flooring itself, the landlord followed its policy. In fact, it gave the resident options to make good the flooring.
17. By offering the resident £200 for paint, it also took steps to make good her decorations. However, the landlord did make clear why it could not similarly complete works to the decorations as with the flooring. This was unreasonable, especially as it had previously redecorated the resident’s property because of leaks. Moreover, it accepted that the resident had mobility issues and was vulnerable due to age. It was unreasonable that it did not consider the feasibility of her completing works herself.
18. The landlord corresponded further with the resident after the complaint procedure. On 17 and 30 May 2025, it agreed to reconsider the compensation for decorations. It noted the resident wanted the window walls and ceiling of the bedroom and living room to be redecorated. It also agreed consider a leak to the hallway. However, the landlord did not respond further to the resident. It therefore failed to fully address and resolve this aspect of her complaint.
19. Evidence from the parties show that after the job order of 22 August 2024, the landlord did not complete the external works until September/ October 2025. In the interim, it arranged other surveys, and employed a specialist drainage contractor. It then tendered roofing works in June 2025. Nonetheless, this was an unreasonable delay, especially as the resident reported further leaks. Moreover, there is no evidence that the landlord explained the delays to the resident or otherwise updated her on the status of works. This was a failure to manage her expectations.
20. The landlord also failed to complete the flooring works. Its records show it ultimately decided to repair the “floor covering / patch repairs to the bowed floorboards”. However, the contractor did not complete these works. The resident has also advised us there are still repairs needed to her windows which she cannot open. She also states there is still a hole under a window.
21. We award the resident further compensation of 10% of her rent for the additional delay in the completion of repair. The calculation commences 60 days after the stage 2 response to 1 October 2025. This is because the landlord’s repairs policy allows 60 working days for programmed repairs, including “window replacements, roofing works with scaffolding, damp works”. This amounts to (10% x £178.83 / 7 x 267 days) + (10% x £ 184.17/ 7 x 184 days) = £682.11 + £484.10 = £1,166.21.

22. The resident raised her complaint with the landlord by asking us to intervene. At both stages, the landlord responded within an appropriate timeframe. We asked the landlord to respond at stage 1 on 30 January 2024. On 29 January 2024, it agreed a 10-day extension to respond to 8 February 2024. Our Complaint Handling Code and the landlord’s Complaint Procedure allows for a 10-day extension, and the landlord responded within the revised timeframe. We asked the landlord to respond at stage 2 by 9 May 2024. The landlord met this target. On 15 April 2024, it advised it would respond by 14 May 2024.
23. However, the Code states “A complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.”  Furthermore, the stage 2 response said, “I am committed to arranging for an effective repair to be carried out promptly, ensuring that it meets the required standards and addresses your concerns adequately.” As noted, the landlord did not confirm its position on the compensation for decorations. It also did not update the resident on the outstanding works to address her concerns. As such, it did not use the resident’s complaint to maintain oversight and resolve her substantive concerns about repairs. Compensation for the failings in the complaint handling is reflected in the compensation for the delay in completion of the substantive repairs.

Learning

24. Where the landlord has responded to a complaint, it should ensure that it responds to follow-on correspondence. Its failure to do so meant that it could not resolve the aspect of the resident’s complaint relating to the redecoration of her property.
25. The landlord must also ensure it tracks and actions agreed actions and provides appropriate updates to the resident. This is especially the case when it cannot carry agreed identified repairs at the first opportunity.