We are currently experiencing technical difficulties with our online complaints form. Please contact us by phone during this time.

Peabody Trust (202342462)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342462

Peabody Trust

25 July 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 landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the kitchen and bathroom.
    2. Damp and mould in the property and associated repairs.
    3. Repairs to balcony railings.
    4. Repairs and decoration to a bedroom ceiling.
    5. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom 2nd floor flat in a medium-rise block. She has lived at the property since November 1995.
  2. The resident has reported issues with damp and mould, and repairs to the kitchen and bathroom since 2021. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs and pursued a disrepair claim against it in 2022.
  3. On 11 April 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of repairs. In addition to the issues raised as part of her disrepair claim, she said:
    1. Cracks had appeared on her bedroom ceiling and she was concerned it may fall through.
    2. The controls for the central heating system were not working.
    3. The barrier along the balcony was loose.
  4. The landlord discussed the resident’s complaint with her on 17 April 2023. It issued its stage 1 response on 21 April 2023. It explained that it would not respond to the repairs that related to her disrepair claim but agreed to pass this information to the appropriate service area. It said it had no record of the repairs for the balcony, heating control, and bedroom ceiling. It recognised that there were many repairs ongoing at the property and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It said it passed the new repairs to its contractor who would contact her separately.
  5. The landlord’s contractor repaired the heating controls and inspected the property on 15 May 2023.
  6. The resident sought help from her MP in August and September 2023. The MP wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf and asked it to complete the repairs.
  7. The landlord’s contractor repaired the ceiling and balcony between 31 August and 1 September 2023. The landlord emailed the resident on 5 September 2023, confirming the works were complete. It offered her £150 compensation for her time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  8. The resident replied to the landlord on 21 September 2023. She said the landlord had not inspected the loft and the balcony railing was still wobbling. She wanted the landlord to complete the repairs.
  9. The landlord’s contractor cleared and inspected the loft on 23 October 2023. It found no evidence of a leak. It passed works to its specialist contractor to inspect the balcony railing. They attended on 14 November 2023. The contractor reported that the railing was moving and recommended repairs to the landlord.
  10. The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 1 May 2024. She said that the repairs raised in her stage 1 complaint were still outstanding. She wanted the landlord to attend and complete the repairs.
  11. The landlord acknowledged the request for stage 2 on 13 June 2024. It sought a response extension on 26 June 2024 because the investigating officer was unavailable. It issued its stage 2 response on 25 July 2024. In its reply, the landlord:
    1. Apologised for the delay in its stage 2 response.
    2. Listed the repairs that it was addressing through her legal disrepair claim.
    3. Summarised the repairs that were part of the complaint and said that its communication had fallen short of its service standard.
    4. Said the only outstanding repair outside of the legal process was the balcony railings. It found the time taken to complete the repairs to the balcony was unacceptable. It noted it had surveyed the railings on 10 June 2024 and was allocating a repair to a specialist contractor. It would continue to monitor the repair and review its offer of compensation once the works were complete.
    5. Partly upheld the complaint and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
    6. Offered the resident £900 compensation. This was comprised of:
      1. £600 for the time taken to repair the balcony.
      2. £300 for its complaint handling failure.
  12. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman in April 2025. She wanted the landlord to complete all outstanding repairs.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case. There are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 41(c) of the Housing Ombudsman states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in our opinion, concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given.
  3. The records show that the resident began a legal disrepair claim against the landlord in July 2021. The resident’s legal representative pursued the claim to the County Court in November 2022 and April 2023 (a court order was made on 17 April 2023). The claim included repairs related to the kitchen, bathroom, and damp in the property. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 41(c) the following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. Repairs to the kitchen and bathroom.
    2. Damp and mould in the property and associated repairs.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s responsive repair policy states that it will complete non urgent repairs within 28 calendar days. Where specialist works are required, it will complete the repair within 60 calendar days.
  2. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days and its stage 2 response within 20 working days.

Repairs to balcony railings

  1. Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair. The landlord must look at the condition of its properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards.
  2. The risk of falling between levels is a potential hazard that falls within the scope of HHSRS. The landlord should be aware of its obligations under HHSRS. Where the landlord has identified potential hazards, it should conduct additional monitoring of the property. The resident lives on the 2nd floor of a medium rise block. The balcony is on the outside of the property. It is reasonable to determine that the railing is installed to prevent the risk of falling between levels.
  3. The records show the resident first reported a problem with the balcony railings in her complaint on 11 April 2023. The landlord first inspected the balcony 34 calendar days later, on 15 May 2023. This was 6 days over the 28 calendar days listed in its responsive repairs policy. Additionally, its notes show the balcony railings were wobbly yet it did not complete any repairs during this inspection. It should have considered the risks to the resident and if there were actions it could reasonably take to mitigate those risks. There was no evidence available to the Ombudsman that it took any action, other than raise an additional inspection request. Its approach to the repair early in the timeline lacked any urgency or consideration of the risks to the resident.
  4. The landlord’s records refer to a specialist survey of the property on 18 July 2023. The Ombudsman has not had sight of the survey so we are unable to confirm if it included the balcony. However, we can see the landlord’s subcontractor booked repairs to the balcony for 31 August 2023. If this work did go ahead, this would have been 108 calendar days after its inspection. This is also well outside the timescales in its responsive repairs policy.
  5. The landlord’s internal emails on 4 September 2023 say balcony repairs were completed in August 2023. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any detailed account of the repairs showing the subcontractor completed such works. The resident’s email to the landlord on 21 September 2023 shows that the balcony railing was still reported as wobbling. This suggests that any repair that the subcontractor did complete was ineffective.
  6. Indeed, the landlord acknowledged that the repair was outstanding in an email response to the resident on 21 September 2023. It appropriately passed the works back to its specialist contractor on 28 September 2023, who attended on 23 October 2023. This was around 32 calendar days after the resident’s email on 21 September 2023. This was another failure by the landlord to comply with the timescales set out in its responsive repairs policy.
  7. The landlord’s contractor also did not complete any repairs when it visited on 23 October 2023. It passed works to another specialist contractor to inspect the railings. The specialist contractor provided a more detailed description to the landlord on 14 November 2023. This showed there was still movement in the balcony railings. The email said that it was the engineers professional opinion that the railing designed may be insufficient for its intended purpose, which was particularly concerning. The landlord acknowledged the recommendations by the subcontractor and said it too would need to survey the balcony. Although this response is not unreasonable, the landlord did not discuss intermediate repairs with the resident to mitigate any risk to her.
  8. Despite the landlord and its contractors’ findings, no action was taken to repair the balcony before the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 July 2024. At that time, the landlord had been on notice of the repair for more than 15 months. This was an excessive delay and substantially over the 60 calendar days set out in its responsive repairs policy for specialist works.
  9. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the time taken to complete the balcony repair was unacceptable. It appropriately apologised for failing to meet its service standards and the distress and inconvenience caused. It said that it had surveyed the railing again on 10 June 2024 and was in the process of sourcing a specialist contractor to complete the repair.
  10. The landlord’s offer of £600 compensation for the time taken to repair the balcony was at the highest end of its compensation policy for a service failure. It also offered to review its offer of compensation once the repairs were complete. This was a reasonable approach and the compensation would have gone some way to put things right for the resident.
  11. However, the landlord’s response should have been more resolution focussed. It could have provided a clear timeframe within which it expected to complete the outstanding repairs. It did not do so and this was a failing by the landlord.
  12. The landlord’s records indicate that this repair remains unresolved. The resident wrote to it in February 2025 to advise that the balcony was loose and very dangerous. It has recently told us that a job was cancelled due to a different contractor managing the wider disrepair matters at the property and that staff did not oversee the balcony job. It is of concern that the landlord did not learn sufficient lessons from its earlier failings and that the balcony safety concern remains unresolved more than 12 months after the end of the complaints process.
  13. The Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord in its handling of balcony repairs. The landlord made a proportionate offer of compensation in its stage 2 response in July 2024. It committed to completing the outstanding repairs to the balcony. However, the Ombudsman is unable to find that the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress as it failed to put things right or learn from the outcome of the complaint. The landlord did not complete the balcony repairs in 2024 or follow through with the commitments in its stage 2 response. There is no record that the landlord reviewed its offer of compensation.
  14. The landlord should pay the resident £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This reflects the additional 12 months that the repair has been outstanding and is consistent with the offer made by the landlord at stage 2.
  15. Orders have been made below for the landlord to inspect the balcony and confirm if repairs are still required or not. If there are repairs outstanding, it should assign them to an appropriate contractor, provide the resident with a plan outlining its actions with timescales and consider if temporary safety measures are necessary. It should assign a single point of contact to oversee the repairs to completion.

Repairs and decoration to a bedroom ceiling

  1. The landlord’s records also show the resident first reported issues with cracks on the bedroom ceiling in her complaint on 11 April 2023. It was therefore reasonable in its stage 1 response to find no failing and assign the works to its contractor for investigation. It was also fair to monitor the works until the repairs were resolved.
  2. The records show the landlord made considerable efforts to complete the repairs within a reasonable period. It made its first attempt to inspect the ceiling on 27 April 2023, which was within the 28 calendar days of the resident’s initial report. It inspected the room on 15 May 2023 and determined the ceiling needed to be redecorated. It made further attempts to visit the resident in May 2023, before it attended on 17 June 2023.
  3. The records show the landlord made efforts to schedule the works between 24 and 26 July 2023. It eventually agreed to start work on 31 August 2023 after speaking to the resident’s family members. It completed the decoration and ceiling repairs between 31 August and 1 September 2023. Following the completion of the works, the landlord followed through with its commitments and made an offer of £150 compensation for her time, trouble, and inconvenience. This offer was reasonable and reflected the additional time taken to complete the repairs.
  4. The resident disputed the landlord’s assertion that the repairs were complete on 21 September 2023. She said the landlord had not inspected the loft. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s concerns and inspected the loft in October 2023. It found no fault in the loft that would cause any cracking or damage to the ceiling.
  5. The Ombudsman finds the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of the repairs and decoration to a bedroom ceiling. It took appropriate steps to inspect the ceiling and schedule the appropriate repairs following the stage 1 response on 21 April 2023. It followed through with its commitments and ensured that the repairs were complete. Its offer of £150 for the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience in September 2023 reflected the impact caused to her over several months.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It will issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. Where it is unable to maintain these commitments, it will notify the resident and agree an extension which should be less than 20 working days.
  2. It is important for the landlord to maintain the commitments set out its policy. It issued its stage 1 response within its stated timescales. It did not issue its stage 2 response within those timescales.
  3. The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 1 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the request 29 working days later, on 13 June 2024. This was an unreasonable delay.
  4. It was reasonable for the landlord to seek an extension when it was unable to meet its 20 working day deadline on 26 June 2024. It then issued its stage 2 response 21 working days later. Although there was a combined delay of around 30 working days, the landlord sought to address those failures in its response.
  5. The Ombudsman finds the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress that resolved its handling of the associated complaint. The landlord recognised the failures to respond to the resident within the timescales set out in its complaint handling policy. It appropriately apologised for those failures. Its offer of £300 compensation was reasonable and reflected the detriment caused to the resident. It was also reflective of both the landlord’s own compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 41(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaints were outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. Repairs to the kitchen and bathroom.
    2. Damp and mould in the property and associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to balcony railings.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was an offer of reasonable redress made by the landlord in its handling of:
    1. Repairs and decoration to a bedroom ceiling.
    2. The associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident the £1,200 compensation. This is comprised of:
      1. £600 compensation offered in its stage 2 response for the time taken to repair the balcony (if it has not already been paid).
      2. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling repairs to balcony railings.
    3. Inspect the balcony and confirm whether repairs have now been completed. If there are repairs outstanding, it should assign them to an appropriate contractor, provide the resident with a plan outlining its actions with timescales and consider if temporary safety measures are necessary. It should assign a single point of contact to oversee the repairs to completion.
  2. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must inspect the other balconies of any other property it owns at the block. This is to determine if the balcony railings installed are sufficient for their intended purpose. It must provide an action plan to remedy the problem if they are not.
  3. Provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £300 compensation offered in its stage 2 response for its complaint handling failures. It should also pay the £150 it offered in its response to the resident on 5 September 2023 for its handling of repairs and decoration to a bedroom ceiling. The Ombudsman’s findings of reasonable redress were made on the basis that these were paid to the resident.