Peabody Trust (202344099)

Decision
Case ID	202344099
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	24 October 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom second floor flat. A neighbour living directly beneath the resident reported a leak to the landlord that was found to be coming from the property above the resident’s.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of repairs following a leak.
   2. The resident’s reports of damaged belongings.
   3. The resident’s decant (move to temporary accommodation).
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of repairs following a leak.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damaged belongings.
   2. The resident’s decant.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord responded appropriately to the initial reports of a leak.
   2. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns regarding the quality of the repairs in an appropriate manner. It offered appropriate resolutions and levels of redress for the failings in its management of remedial works.
   3. The landlord advised the resident correctly in response to his reports of damaged belongings and used a hardship fund to assist where it could.
   4. The landlord managed the resident’s move into temporary accommodations reasonably.
   5. There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling but it offered sufficient redress for these given the circumstances of the case.

Putting things right

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
Compensation If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident £438.42 offered through its complaint responses. The Ombudsman’s findings of reasonable redress are made on the basis that this amount is paid.
Decant Expenses If its has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £20 per day allowance for the period he was decanted. This is following the advice given on 15 January 2024. The Ombudsman’s finding of no maladministration is made on the basis that this amount is paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 April 2023	The landlord’s contractor attended to the neighbour’s reports of a leak from the resident’s property. As the resident was not at home, the contractor forced entry to establish the origin of the leak.
24 May 2023	The resident returned from holiday and found a note from the contractor along with the damage caused by the leak. He also had no power in the flat, which he notified the landlord of that same day.
31 May 2023	The resident raised a complaint as there had been no progress made on the repairs to his flat. He advised the leak damaged most of rooms in the property and had now progressed to mould.
21 June 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It made the following findings:   The contractor attended the leak as an emergency. It had been necessary to force entry to assess the origin of the leak and damage caused. It raised follow on appointments to repair the leak damage. It apologised for any delay in electrical repairs and stated it would consider this when calculating compensation. It would complete a living room door repair as a gesture of goodwill. It advised that the resident should refer any claims for damaged items to his contents insurer or send a claim to its insurer for consideration. It advised that once all repairs were complete, it would be in a position to calculate compensation for his time and trouble.
23 June 2023	The resident escalated his complaint. He stated there were significant discrepancies in the landlord’s response. He requested it contact him to discuss these.
24 July 2023	Following an internal request, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2. It said that it had completed all of the required original repairs but the resident disputed this. It stated there had been disagreements between the resident and contractor regarding the paintwork completed. As such, further investigation was appropriate at stage 2.
16 August 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said that:   Its contractor needed to force access on the night of the leak as they suspected the leak was originating from his property. It apologised that its contractor did not complete the required work to restore the electrics. It had wrongly advised that the repair would require attendance from his energy provider. However, it restored power within 24 hours, not 29 days as stated at stage 1. The resident declined its offer to decant him. It apologised that it did not follow up on this but with power restored in 24 hours this was not applicable. It apologised for the incorrect information provided regarding the living room door. As the door had swollen due to the leak, the repair would be its responsibility. It had completed a tenancy hardship fund request to support with the replacement of personal items damaged during the leak. It apologised for the delay in completing the repairs along with the delays in responding to his complaint. It offered compensation of £350, made up of £150 for time and trouble in pursuing the matter and £200 for complaint handling failures.
26 February 2024	The landlord issued a follow up stage 2. It addressed the resident’s additional concerns regarding the repairs, attitude of contractors, and compensation. It said:   It gave him £100 in food vouchers, £100 in additional vouchers, a laptop, and headphones from its tenancy hardship fund. It reiterated its advice to claim against insurance for damaged personal items. It disagreed with his allegations about 8 missed appointments. It would not award more compensation for repairs done by its contractor. It decanted him because the further required repairs took several days. It increased its offer of compensation by £88.42. This consisted of £68.45 for utility expenses incurred during the repair works and £20 for 2 missed contractor appointments.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident sent his complaint to us. He wanted: The landlord to repair damp and mould in the kitchen left by the leak. Compensation for water used while he was decanted. Compensation for his additional expenses incurred while decanted. These included laundry and food charges totalling £450. Compensation for leak and sawdust damage to his furniture, appliances and flooring, as well as 6 further missed repair appointments.

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 resident’s reports of repairs following a leak
Finding	Reasonable redress

7. It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for the repairs that occurred following a leak through his property on 26 April 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend an out of hours emergency within 4 hours and make safe within 24 hours. The landlord responded appropriately to the initial reports of a leak. Its contractor attended the property the same day, identified and rectified the cause of the leak.
8. The resident returned from holiday on 24 May 2023. He reported to the landlord that he had no electrics and questioned why forced entry was required to his property. The records show the landlord responded appropriately to the report of no power by attending within 24 hours. During the visit, the operative advised the resident to contact his energy supplier to help diagnose the issue. The landlord has acknowledged later in the timeline that its contractor could have completed these repairs without the need for the supplier to attend. This delay caused the resident additional delay in resolving the matter.
9. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it confirmed why it was required to force entry. It advised this was to establish the damage caused and also to confirm the source of the leak. The records show that the landlord did attempt to make initial contact with the resident prior to the forced entry. This was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy where an emergency repair or inspection is needed and it is unable to contact a resident.
10. The resident reported that following the initial repairs from the leak, several areas remained outstanding. These included replacing affected ceilings, outstanding paint work, and damage to the living room door. He also raised concerns regarding the extent of the painting required and quality of the repairs completed.
11. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 response that its contractor had completed all of these repairs by 15 June 2023. However, following the resident’s reports regarding the quality of the repairs, it arranged an inspection for 18 July 2023. The records show that, following the inspection, the contractor raised concerns about the resident’s behaviour when discussing the scope of the work. As such, it requested a representative from the landlord be present during future repairs. This was a reasonable request by the contractor to help manage any further disputes.
12. In the August 2023 stage 2 response, the landlord advised that its contractor had now agreed to complete a list of additional repairs. It scheduled the further work for completion by 29 August 2023. However, by 25 September 2023, the resident alleged there had been 6 failed appointments. He also reported the quality of work was not of a good standard.
13. The landlord reviewed its own records on 27 September 2023 and found that it had missed 2 appointments. It appropriately arranged a joint inspection with its contractor to identify any outstanding repairs. This showed that the landlord was taking a proactive approach to managing its contractors.
14. Due to the resident’s concerns, the landlord appointed a new contractor on 3 October 2023 and agreed to paint the property as a gesture of good will. It arranged the follow on work for 20 November 2023. However, the contractor reported that, upon attending the property, the resident’s behaviour prevented it from completing repairs. The records show the contractor requested guidance from the landlord on how to proceed to ensure a safe and professional working environment. It was reasonable for the landlord to assess the concerns raised by the contractor.
15. The resident advised the landlord that he had refused access to the contractor due to them providing inaccurate identification information. In order to resolve the issue, the landlord completed a further inspection of the workmanship on 19 December 2023. This was a proactive and appropriate response by the landlord where the resident has questioned the quality of the contractor’s workmanship.
16. Having agreed a plan of works with the resident, the landlord arranged for a third contractor who started the work on 18 January 2024. This approach demonstrates the landlord’s willingness to resolve the resident’s complaint and deliver his desired outcome.
17. The landlord provided a review of its stage 2 findings on 26 February 2024. It stated that, following an inspection of the property prior to the third contractor’s appointment, it had completed repairs in accordance with its policy. However, in order to resolve the complaint, it agreed a number of additional repairs. It also increased its offer of compensation to £170, consisting of:
    1. £150 for time, trouble and inconvenience caused in resolving the repairs.
    2. £20 for 2 missed appointments.
18. This was an appropriate amount of compensation and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there is a failure that has adversely affected a resident. Although the remedial works remained outstanding into 2024, not all of the delay was in the landlord’s control. It agreed to additional works and pro-actively dealt with concerns raised by the resident and contractor.
19. Overall, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs following a leak. There were delays in resolving the repairs to the resident’s desired standard. However, the landlord attended to the initial repairs within its prescribed timescales. Its responses were resolution focused, it took the resident’s concerns seriously, and it provided additional services outside its obligations. It provided appropriate inspections of the repairs and a proactive approach in appointing alternative contractors.

Complaint	The resident’s reports of damaged belongings
Finding	No maladministration

20. The landlord’s compensation policy states there are situations where it may not consider offering compensation. These include where a resident can make a claim on their own home contents insurance. The resident reported that the leak damaged several of his items. These included his sofa, prayer mat, bathroom mirror and a stereo unit.
21. In the stage 1 response, the landlord advised the resident that he could claim for these items against his own contents insurance. However, if he did not have insurance and believed it was liable for the damages, he could submit a claim to its insurance team. This was an appropriate response and in line with its compensation policy.
22. Having discussed the situation further with the resident on 17 August 2023, the landlord provided assistance within its stage 2 response. It had made an application on his behalf to its tenancy and family support team. It noted it would assess whether it could replace, or contribute towards, the replacement of damaged items as a gesture of goodwill. This demonstrates a proactive and resolution focused approach.
23. The landlord promptly processed this application. It offered the resident food vouchers and furniture on 30 August 2023. These were reasonable offers and further demonstrate the landlord’s proactive approach to supporting the resident. It was fair to ask the resident to evidence his benefit entitlement to progress this claim. It also appropriately continued to direct the resident to pursue a liability claim.
24. In the follow on stage 2 response on 26 February 2024, the landlord provided further details on the offer made. It advised that this included £100 in food vouchers, £100 in high street vouchers along with a laptop and headphones. This was a reasonable response by the landlord. Having identified vulnerabilities at an early stage, it followed its housing support fund process to ensure an appropriate award was made.
25. Overall, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damaged items. It supplied the correct information in line with its compensation policy at stage 1. It took a proactive approach in view of the resident’s circumstances. It promptly pursued an application for support for the resident.

Complaint	The resident’s decant
Finding	No maladministration

26. The landlord’s alternative accommodation policy applies where a property is identified as requiring extensive works that cannot be carried out with residents in their home or where there are health and safety or safeguarding concerns.
27. The landlord identified on 19 December 2023 that extensive works over several days were required and arranged alternative accommodation at the resident’s request. The resident asked for a hotel within a close radius. The records show the landlord complied with this request. This was an appropriate response and demonstrates the landlord considered the resident’s needs.
28. The resident said he enquired as to the allowance he would receive for food and laundry during his stay. The records show the landlord provided this information on 15 January 2024. It advised he would be provided with a £20 per day food allowance, but it would not cover his laundry or any phone calls made from the hotel. This is an appropriate response and is in line with its alternative accommodation policy.
29. However, the resident raised several concerns following his return to the property. These included:
    1. Incorrect information being provided by the landlord regarding his food allowance.
    2. It did not provide a taxi to bring him back from the hotel.
    3. The contractor had used gas and electric during the repairs.
30. In the stage 2 follow on response shortly after, the landlord advised the following:
    1. It had asked the neighbourhoods team to confirm the permitted allowance with the resident, as the complaints team were not familiar with the specifics of the policy. This information had been confirmed to the resident prior to his stay. It apologised if any incorrect information had been provided.
    2. It apologised that it had not arranged a taxi for the return journey and his feedback had been passed to the neighbourhoods team.
    3. It had confirmed with his energy supplier that its contractor used £35.71 electric and £32.71 gas during the decant. As such, it offered to pay £68.42 in compensation.
31. This was an appropriate response as the landlord’s compensation policy states ‘it will not reimburse for utilities used during repairs’. As such, this demonstrates the landlord’s commitment to ensure that it did not cause the resident any hardship.
32. Overall, the Ombudsman finds there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the decant. The records demonstrate that it provided the resident the correct information prior to his stay on 18 January 2024. During this conversation, the landlord clearly communicated what would and would not be reimbursed. It also provided additional support outside of its compensation policy to reimburse utility charges.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

33. The resident raised a complaint on 31 May 2023. The landlord responded 15 working days later on 21 June 2023. Its response was outside of the timescales stated in its complaints policy.
34. The resident escalated his complaint on 23 June 2023. The landlord failed to acknowledge this request. It instead internally escalated the complaint to stage 2 without notifying the resident on 24 July 2023. Its failure to acknowledge this escalation with the resident likely contributed to a further breakdown in relations between the parties.
35. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this failure in its stage 2 response. It apologised for the delay and advised that it had put into place additional measures to ensure timescales in its policy were met. It offered compensation of £200 for its complaint handling failures. This is an appropriate amount and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failing which adversely affected a resident.
36. Overall, the ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. It has identified there were failings and apologised appropriately for these. It has offered an appropriate amount of redress for the delays in its handling of the complaint. If the landlord had not made this offer, the Ombudsman would have made a finding of maladministration.

Learning

37. The landlord should ensure it has appropriate communication measures in place with its contractors moving forward. This should include clear action plans for repairs required, as well as appropriate post inspections of repairs to ensure consistency and standards are being adhered to.
38. The landlord should ensure it sets clear repair action plans with residents from the outset to prevent any confusion over what will and will not be included with its scope of works.