Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Peabody Trust (202344894)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344894

Peabody Trust

22 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. Works linked to a void space in the hallway ceiling.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement which began on 19 April 2021. The property is a 1-bed ground floor flat in a converted house.
  2. In August 2023, the landlord identified a disused water tank in a sealed space in the ceiling of the resident’s property. The landlord raised a works order to remove the tank, which it did on 14 November 2023.
  3. On 20 December 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint and said the landlord had refused to remove the void space and wanted to decorate over it. The resident requested that it remove the frame of the void space, repair a hole in the ceiling and then redecorate the area.
  4. On 8 April 2024, the landlord provided a stage 1 response in which it acknowledged the delay in carrying out works. It said that it had scheduled the required works for 18 April 2024 and would ensure completion and then discuss potential compensation.
  5. The landlord provided another stage 1 complaint response on 9 May 2024 following contact from this Service. This response included additional repairs to those referenced in the initial complaint. The landlord said it had attempted to attend on 18 April 2024 to carry out the required works but could not gain access. It advised that it had rebooked the works for 20 May 2024, and the contractor would arrange any follow-on works. The landlord offered compensation of £600 for the failings identified in its investigation.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint on 15 May 2024 after an incorrect contractor attended her property. She said the same contractor had attended on several occasions previously to plaster over the void space. The resident added that she wanted the agreed works completed by the end of May 2024 and an increased compensation offer.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 16 July 2024. The response incorrectly said that it completed the required works on 4 June 2024. The landlord also offered a reduced compensation payment of £550 for its failings.
  8. Following the complaint, the landlord carried out the required works in the hallway over the following few months. The landlord’s records note that it completed decoration works by 7 November 2024 although the exact completion date is unclear.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has raised other complaints with the landlord about issues including flooring, anti-social behaviour and soundproofing. However, the resident did not raise these at the time of the initial complaint in December 2023. Therefore, the landlord did not fully investigate these as part of the complaint under our consideration. As these matters did not exhaust the landlord’s complaint process as part of this particular complaint (with the final complaint response dated 16 July 2024), we have not commented on them within this investigation.
  2. The resident has since raised several other complaints with this Service relating to these matters and we have different case references for these (including 202445902 which relates to a final complaint response dated 8 April 2025). On this basis, the resident would need to await further correspondence relating to those cases or contact us quoting the relevant case reference.

Works linked to a void space in the hallway ceiling

  1. The landlord’s repair records show that it first raised a works order for the removal of the void space and related decorative works on 13 November 2023. As this work is an improvement, rather than a responsive repair, the timeframe for the works was 60 calendar days, as per the landlord’s repair policy.
  2. The works order raised on 13 November 2023 said “void space now needs removing and adequate ceiling put in”. Despite this, the landlord’s records show that it attended on 21 November 2023, 4 January 2024 and 16 January 2024 to decorate over the frame of the void space. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord as it did not arrange for completion of the agreed works, inconveniencing the resident and causing understandable frustration.
  3. The landlord raised a further works order on 30 January 2024 for mould works and to make good the void space. Some of the repair logs are unclear but suggest that the landlord made similar attempts to carry out decorative works over the void space in March 2024. The landlord raised further repair orders after the resident refused those works. This is another service failing by the landlord as it made the same mistake in arranging visits for an incorrect scope of works.
  4. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged these delays and provided an appointment date of 18 April 2024 for the required works. However, it did not specify a timeframe for the visit in its letter. Landlord records show that the resident called and requested the timeframe prior to the appointment. However, the notes indicate that the landlord could not provide this and instead left a voicemail for the resident to call the contractor. This was an inappropriate way to manage the resident’s request for information.
  5. The landlord said in its further stage 1 letter, dated 9 May 2024, that the contractor recorded the visit on 18 April 2024 as incomplete due to no access. This is likely because the landlord did not ensure that it provided the resident with a timeframe for the appointment. After the resident chased the landlord for an appointment time, it should have ensured that it provided this information in advance. This is another service failing by the landlord, contributing to further delays in the completion of the works.
  6. The landlord provided a further appointment date, for 20 May 2024, within the stage 1 response dated 9 May 2024. The resident said that, on 15 May 2024, the same contractor that made 3 prior visits attended the property with the intention of decorating over the void space. This is another service failing on the part of the landlord as it continued to attempt the incorrect works.
  7. There is no evidence of further work orders for the removal of the void space until 15 August 2024, over 3 weeks after the stage 2 response. Within that response, the landlord incorrectly said that it had already completed the required works on 4 June 2024. This is another service failing which demonstrates a lack of accurate record keeping by the landlord. This likely contributed to the additional unreasonable delays in arranging the required works.
  8. On 17 September 2024, the contractor agreed an appointment for the required ceiling works on 26 September 2024. Notes are unclear but suggest that the contractor completed the void space removal and plastering works by 29 September 2024. Records indicate that the landlord completed the follow-on decorative works by 7 November 2024. This means it took 51 weeks for the landlord to complete the works first requested on 14 November 2023. This is significantly outside the timeframe set out in its repair policy.
  9. When raising works orders in January 2024, the landlord noted that a hole in the ceiling within the void space required a mould wash. Landlord records show no evidence of completion of this work. The landlord made the same request in August 2024 when raising works orders for the void space. This shows that the landlord did not take appropriate action to address the reports of mould for over 6 months.
  10. The landlord’s repair policy says that it aims to complete damp and mould works within 60 calendar days. However, in this instance, it took over 7 months for it to address mould within the void space. This is another service failing on the part of the landlord as it failed to meet its own timeframes, adding to the resident’s concerns about the health and safety implications of the presence of mould.
  11. In summary, the landlord failed to apply adequate oversight to the required works at the resident’s property. There were numerous works orders raised for the same works but these were not allocated correctly, meaning the landlord sent the wrong type of contractor out on several occasions. Even when the resident made the landlord aware of these errors, it failed to correct itself and did the same thing again.
  12. These failures contributed to excessive delay in the completion of the agreed works. During this time, the landlord did not act on the need for mould treatment, likely because it tied them in with the delayed void space works. The landlord should have addressed the mould separately to ensure it could monitor and complete works within the timeframe set out in its repair policy.
  13. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £400 in compensation. Having considered the failures identified in this case and the associated impact on the resident, the Ombudsman is of the view that this offer was reasonable.It was proportionate and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for circumstances where there are landlord failings that had an adverse impact on a resident.
  14. We therefore consider that the landlord offered reasonable redress for its failings related to the void space. This would have been a finding of maladministration had the landlord not taken steps to acknowledge and provide redress for its failings. The finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the landlord’s handling of the works, or impact on the resident, was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were considerable failings by the landlord which its compensation offer acknowledged and compensated for in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it should provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement. The policy says it may extend this timeframe, but this should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint until 18 January 2024, some 19 working days after the resident raised it. This was outside of the 5 working days the policy sets out for an acknowledgment. The landlord then failed to provide its stage 1 response until 8 April 2024, some 57 working days after the acknowledgement.
  2. This Service did not see any evidence of the landlord explaining an extension to the resident. Within its response, the landlord apologised for delays and provided a date, without a time, for a visit to complete the repairs. The time taken to provide the stage 1 response was unreasonable and the findings within it did not warrant such a delay. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord as it failed to meet its own timeframes, adding to the excessive delays that the resident had already experienced.
  3. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it should provide an acknowledgement of a stage 2 complaint within 5 working days and a response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. We have not had sight of an acknowledgement of the stage 2 complaint made on 15 May 2024. The landlord then did not respond in full until 16 July 2024, some 44 working days later. This is another service failing on the part of the landlord as it again failed to meet the timeframes set out in its complaint policy.
  4. The stage 2 response did not show an adequate level of investigation of the resident’s complaint. This is evident as the landlord said it had completed the repairs on 4 June 2024 even though they remained outstanding at the time of the response. This is another service failing on the part of the landlord which could only add to the resident’s frustration.
  5. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord attributed some of the delay to the resident discussing the scope of the required works with the contractor. Although the scope of works did play a part, the evidence shows that this was because the landlord sent contractors to decorate over the void space instead of removing it as agreed. This was another service failing in which the landlord showed a lack of understanding of the complaint and acknowledgement of its own failures.
  6. In summary, the landlord did not manage the complaint in line with its policy. It also failed to show adequate understanding of, and investigation into, the reasons for the complaint.
  7. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord offered compensation of £150 for the complaint handling failures. Having considered the failings and the impact on the resident, we are of the view that the proposed compensation was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance for situations where landlord failings had an adverse impact on the resident. This was sufficient given the inaccurate complaint response and delays across a few months.
  8. As the landlord acknowledged the complaint handling delays and made a proportionate offer of compensation, we make a finding of reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the works linked to a void space in the hallway ceiling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation amount of £550, made up of £400 (for the impact caused by the failings) and £150 (complaint handling) it offered through the complaints process. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress decisions are made on the basis that these amounts are paid.