Read our new Corporate Strategy 2025-30 and Business Plan 2025-26.

Peabody Trust (202345779)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345779

Peabody Trust

30 January 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 a leak.
    2. Repairs to resolve damp and mould and associated repairs.
    3. Multiple decants.
    4. The resident’s request for a management transfer.
    5. The formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom maisonette. The landlord is a housing association. It has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, however, her son has autism, hearing loss and vision impairment which the landlord is aware of.
  2. The resident applied for a management transfer on a date unknown, due to domestic abuse, and the landlord granted this on 9 May 2021. It wrote to her and confirmed it had awarded a priority banding, gave information on how she could bid for properties using its lettings website, and that it would make one direct offer of an alternative property to her when one became available. The landlord emailed the resident on 12 August 2021 to repeat its previous decision and provide advice on bidding again. It confirmed it would offer her one property when one became available.
  3. On 22 June 2022 the landlord agreed to temporarily ‘decant’ or move the resident while it repaired the property. It also confirmed that she remained approved for a management transfer. The landlord exchanged emails with its decant company between 29 June and 8 July 2022 to arrange a decant to start from 11 July 2022, but later changed this to start from 22 August 2022 at the resident’s request. In internal emails on 14 July 2022 the landlord said it had a property to offer to the resident as a management transfer and it was waiting for it to become ready to view.
  4. The decant did not go ahead on 22 August 2022 and the resident’s solicitors emailed the landlord to chase this. The landlord said in internal emails that the alternative property was ready to view from 12 September 2022. It confirmed on 28 September 2022 that the resident had rejected it and so it would rearrange the decant. On 4 October 2022 the landlord emailed the decant company to arrange a new decant. The resident emailed the local mayor on 5 October 2022 to ask for help. She said the landlord was meant to decant her, and she had packed, but then it was delayed, and she was still waiting to hear. The mayor emailed the landlord and asked it to respond.
  5. On 13 October 2022 the landlord completed a management transfer review, as the resident had rejected the alternative property offered to her. The review also stated it had offered a second property, on an unknown date, which she had also rejected. It said the resident rejected the offers as they were too far away from her son’s specialist school which offered assistance with his disabilities. The next day, in internal emails the landlord reconfirmed a decant was needed for it to carry out the works, and that the resident’s possessions would need to be placed into storage. On 20 October 2022 the landlord replied to the mayor and said the resident had agreed to a decant from 23 October 2022 for one month, while it completed repairs to the property.
  6. The landlord extended the decant for a further month on 29 November 2022. The same day it emailed the storage company and asked it to arrange removal and storage of the resident’s possessions. Between 8 and 22 December 2022 the resident’s solicitors and landlord, and the landlord and storage company, exchanged emails about storage of possessions and to arrange a new decant property for the resident to start from 23 December 2022. The resident’s solicitors emailed the landlord on 4 January 2023 and asked about its plan for storage and further decant. It also provided a notice of hearing it had received from the court (not provided to this Service).
  7. On 16 January 2023 the landlord extended the resident’s decant. The storage company emailed the landlord on 19 January 2023 and said the resident had yet to book a date for removals. It extended the decant again on 15 March 2023. The resident emailed the landlord and asked what was happening with her repairs. She also said she would rather move to a different property permanently. The landlord replied on 22 March 2023 that the repairs could not start until she agreed a date with the storage company for removal of her possessions. It said this was the reason for her prolonged decant.
  8. The landlord emailed the resident again on 28 March 2023. It explained that it could not start repairs until her possessions had been removed into storage. It said it had been asking her to work with the storage company since November 2022 to arrange this and asked her to contact them to agree a date. It also explained it had offered her one property as a management transfer, which was outside of her “risk area” but she had declined, and so had her status removed. It also said she could make a new management transfer application if she wished. The landlord extended the resident’s decant on 14 April 2023.
  9. The landlord called the resident on 4 May 2023 to discuss the situation. It explained again that it could not offer a permanent move but could try to help with a mutual exchange. It also said she needed to agree a date with the storage company for removals so it could start the repairs. It extended her decant again on 24 May 2023. On an unknown date the storage company removed the resident’s possessions, and the landlord carried out repairs. In an internal email on 9 August 2023 the landlord said it had completed the repairs, and the resident could return from her decant on 15 August 2023. It said it had called her to advise, and arrange for her possessions to be returned, but she told it she was going on holiday for 2 weeks.
  10. Between 9 and 15 August 2023 the resident and landlord, and the landlord and the resident’s solicitors, exchanged further emails about her returning to the property, in which:
    1. The resident said she could not cancel her foreign holiday, and she had not been given any advanced notice about when she could return to the property. She asked for time to check the property before she moved back.
    2. The landlord suggested she take her possessions which were at the decant back to the property, and it could arrange for furniture to be returned while she was away.
    3. The resident said she had tried to enter the property on 11 August 2023 but had been stopped by its staff, who were inspecting for further repairs.
    4. The landlord agreed to the decant staff entering the resident’s room and packing up her belongings in her absence and the resident arranged for a friend to collect these.
    5. The landlord told the resident, and her solicitors, that the property was habitable and could be moved into.
  11. During a call with the landlord on 22 August 2023 the resident said there were still outstanding repairs at the property. It inspected and said some repairs needed to be completed. On 26 September 2023 the landlord inspected again, produced a report, and confirmed it had completed all the repairs.
  12. On 8 March 2024 the resident emailed the landlord, its chief executive, and the local mayor, to make a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
    1. Having had damp and mould since 2015, leaks into her property, a previous ceiling collapse and multiple repairs which caused her to instruct a solicitor.
    2. The way her decant was handled, including moving between decant properties, and her needing to pack her possessions and have them taken into storage. She said she was initially told to pack up her first floor, but subsequently told to pack up the whole property with 2 days’ notice. The decant had also caused financial loss.
    3. Ongoing miscommunication.
    4. Incomplete and failing repairs since she returned to the property.
    5. Wanting to be permanently moved to a different property.
  13. The resident contacted this Service, and the Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 13 May 2024 and asked it to respond to the stage 1 complaint by 20 May 2024. The landlord called the resident on 16 May 2024 and emailed her the following day to acknowledge the complaint and ask for an extension of time until 3 June 2024 to respond. It provided its stage 1 response on that date, in which it:
    1. Apologised for the inconvenience caused and said its surveyor would arrange to inspect the property.
    2. Said the resident could claim back costs incurred due to her decant from it and said it would contact her about this within 48 hours.
    3. Explained it was not able to offer to rehouse her and why. It explained mutual exchange as a possible solution, and that she could contact her local council.
    4. Offered £200 compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused and £200 for the repairs issues.
    5. Said how she could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  14. On 6 June 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said she had lost confidence in its surveyor and had not been contacted about her decant costs. She also asked it to review its compensation offer. She emailed it again on 17 June 2024 to chase a response. The resident contacted this Service again and the Ombudsman asked the landlord on 15 July 2024 to provide a stage 2 response by 22 July 2024. The landlord called and emailed the resident on 17 July 2024 to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint and ask for an extension of time of 20 working days.
  15. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 12 August 2024, in which it:
    1. Said the resident remained dissatisfied as she had damp and mould, its surveyor was not communicating with her, she had suffered financial hardship, and her mental health had been affected by the decants.
    2. Apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused.
    3. Apologised for its poor communication and said it had completed an inspection using a different surveyor as she had requested. It said it would arrange further repairs.
    4. Regarding her decant it:
      1. Recognised the additional expense the resident incurred taking her children to and from school and offered £220 discretionary compensation towards this.
      2. Apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of her decants and said it could have been more organised in its approach.
      3. Said it had agreed to pay for 3 weeks’ additional hotel accommodation, following the resident reporting the repairs were not completed, but had not paid a subsistence allowance. It said as the property had been ready to occupy it would offer her 50% of the allowance being £420.
    5. Said it was sorry if her decant experience had affected her mental health, but that it could not consider personal injury under its compensation policy.
    6. Confirmed the resident still had a priority banding to move if she were to bid, but that it could not offer her a management transfer.
    7. Accepted its complaint handling failings in not raising her stage 1 complaint and not escalating her complaint until contacted by the Ombudsman each time. It apologised for the time and trouble caused and offered £400 compensation.
    8. Upheld the complaint and offered total compensation of £1,640, made up of £600 for distress and inconvenience, £640 discretionary reimbursement for decant expenses, and £400 for complaint handling.
  16. Between 4 September and 3 December 2024, in multiple internal emails, the landlord chased for a start date for the further repairs it needed to complete.
  17. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she still has outstanding repairs. She said the landlord is not responding to her or communicating with her.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of investigation

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. On 17 January 2020 the resident’s solicitors sent a letter of claim to the landlord alleging disrepair. The landlord’s surveyor, and the resident’s surveyor, both inspected the property in February and March 2020 respectively, and produced reports. In September 2020 the resident’s solicitors issued a disrepair claim at the county court and received notice of issue dated 11 September 2020. The court entered judgement in default against the landlord on 8 October 2020. On 29 December 2020 the court listed a disposal hearing, to deal with the resident’s request for specific performance. In advance of the hearing, the landlord and resident’s solicitors agreed to an order that the landlord pay damages and complete the works set out in the survey reports. The court approved the order on 22 January 2021.
  3. The resident has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaints about a leak, and repairs to resolve damp and mould and associated repairs. As the resident issued a claim for disrepair in the county court, which was settled based on an agreed order, the Ombudsman is not able to consider these elements of her complaint.
  4. Under paragraph 42.e of the Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings. Under paragraph 42.f we may not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  5. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the court order and so cannot say whether the resident can go back to the court in the previous proceedings (42.e) or would need to make a new application to restore the claim (42.f). In either case, the resident’s complaints about the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak and repairs to resolve damp and mould and associated repairs are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The landlord’s handling of multiple decants

  1. The landlord classes a temporary move to an alternative property, to allow it to complete planned repairs within the property, as a non-emergency temporary decant. Under its decant policy it will offer this when it cannot complete repairs with the resident remaining at the property, which otherwise would be its preference. It says it will keep the time the resident is decanted to a minimum, make the process “as easy as possible”, will provide support and clear information. If it cannot provide one of its own properties for a decant, the landlord will work with other agencies to provide the accommodation.
  2. The landlord agreed to decant the resident on 22 June 2022. It is not known why there was such a delay between the landlord becoming aware it needed to complete repairs and this date. It agreed a start date with the resident and the decant company for 22 August 2022, however the decant did not go ahead. In the interim the landlord said it had a property to offer as a management transfer, but it did not appear to know when it would be ready, and so it should not have cancelled or delayed the decant. It then said the property was available and the resident had rejected it by the end of September 2022. While it started to arrange the decant on 4 October 2022, it did not confirm it until on or around 20 October 2022, which was a further delay.
  3. By 14 October 2022 the landlord had decided that the resident’s possessions would need to go into storage, and that the repairs would take 4 to 6 weeks, therefore a decant to a hotel or serviced apartment was reasonable. However, there is no evidence on what, if anything, it told the resident at that time, or whether it told her which of her possessions would need to be stored. It delayed until 29 November 2022 to contact its storage company to arrange removals, which was an unexplained delay, as the resident had been decanted since 23 October 2022.
  4. During December 2022 the was a lack of communication, or miscommunication, between the landlord and the resident, with the resident communicating via her solicitors. The evidence suggests the resident had not been told that she needed to pack all her possessions for removal and storage. She later said, in her stage 1 complaint, she was told that only her possessions on her first floor needed to be stored, before being told it was the whole property. The evidence also shows that the resident was uncertain about her decant, having been told it was coming to an end, and then that she needed to move to a new decant property with little notice. There was a failure to communicate clearly and provide a plan for the decant and storage of her possessions.
  5. Positively the landlord did arrange a new decant property from 23 December 2022. It continued to extend the decant while it waited for the resident to pack her possessions and arrange a date for removals with its storage company. The evidence clearly shows repairs could not start until the property had been cleared, and the landlord’s attempts to persuade the resident to arrange a removals date. The landlord wanted to complete the repairs and was trying to move the process forward which was solution focused.
  6. Once it had completed the repairs the landlord contacted the resident to tell her she could move back to the property on 15 August 2023. It did this on 9 August 2023, giving her less than a week’s notice. There is no evidence the landlord had prior to this provided an estimated date of when she could return. When the resident told the landlord she was going on a foreign holiday for 2 weeks, likely booked some time in advance, its response was unsympathetic and heavy handed. It told her that she had to leave the decant, including removing her possessions. It later told her it had allowed staff from the decant accommodation to enter her accommodation and pack up her possessions without her consent. It demanded she collect the possessions and agree to her stored possessions being returned to the property in her absence. Its approach caused a high level of stress, anxiety and inconvenience for the resident which was unnecessary.
  7. Positively, after the resident returned to the property and discovered outstanding repairs, the landlord agreed to pay for her to stay in a hotel for 3 weeks. It correctly said she could claim back additional expenses from it and that it would contact her within its stage 1 response, however, it failed to do so. Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly accepted its failings. It said it could have had a more organised approach and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. It offered compensation of £600 and discretionary reimbursement of £640 for some of the expenses she incurred.
  8. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  9. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of multiple decants. While it was correct to offer a decant, its communication and plan around the decant, and the removal and storage of the resident’s possessions was missing or poor. The short notice nature of the landlord’s arrangements left the resident distressed and inconvenienced without knowing what was going to happen. This was also demonstrated in the way the landlord handled her return to the property and dealt with her possessions. While it is positive that the landlord accepted some of its failings, and offered compensation within its highest compensation policy banding, this did not reflect the level of distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused.
  10. To reflect the impact of the maladministration on the resident, an order has been made that the landlord pay compensation of £800, which is inclusive of its £600 stage 2 offer, but in addition to the £640 discretionary reimbursement it offered which it must also pay if it has not already done so. This amount is lower than what would have ordinarily been ordered to reflect the delays caused by the resident which prolonged her decant.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer

  1. When the resident applied for a management transfer in 2021 the landlord granted this and awarded an ‘A’ priority banding. Under its transfer policy this is the highest priority banding and was awarded due to domestic abuse. It correctly agreed to a management transfer following its policy to grant these when there was a serious risk to the safety and wellbeing of the resident. It told the resident how she could bid using its lettings website, and that it would make her one offer of a suitable property.
  2. Under its policy the landlord will review management transfer status every 3 months. There is no evidence that it did this, but the resident retained this status until after she had rejected 2 offers of alternative properties to move to. While the landlord said it would only make one offer, its policy says that it would remove the status if the resident refused 2 reasonable offers. The evidence shows that the resident was offered 2 properties, and refused them, and so the landlord removed management transfer status in or after October 2022. While the resident gave good reason for refusing the offers, as they were a long distance from her son’s specialist school, the landlord had specifically made these offers as they were away from her current property, said to be the risk area. The landlord therefore followed its policy and its decision was reasonable.
  3. In March 2023, when the resident said she wanted a permanent move due to the repairs issues at the property, the landlord explained it had removed her management transfer status, but correctly explained she could apply again. In May 2023, it positively said it could try to help her to find a mutual exchange, but this would only be possible once the repairs had been completed. The landlord fully explained why it could not offer her a permanent move within it stage 1 response, and positively suggested alternative letting schemes and mutual exchange as a possible solution. Within its stage 2 response it repeated that it could not offer her a move, but said she still had a priority banding to bid through its lettings website. It is not clear whether the resident knew this information, however, it is positive that it had kept her priority banding which the landlord said meant she had a high likelihood of being offered a property if she were to bid on one.
  4. The landlord followed its lettings policy. It correctly granted management transfer status and priority banding. It offered 2 properties as management transfers, and reasonably removed the status once both had been refused, as per its policy. The landlord gave appropriate advice to the resident about other options to move and retained her priority banding for its lettings website. There was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint

  1. Under its complaints policy the landlord defines a complaint as per paragraph 1.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, it failed to raise or acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint in March 2024. Once the Ombudsman contacted it, the landlord acknowledged the complaint within its 5 working day policy timeframe. It asked for an extension of time, as permitted under its policy, and provided its stage 1 response within the 10-working day extended timeframe. However, the landlord failed to recognise, apologise for, or offer redress for its complaint handling failing, which was a further failing.
  2. When the resident asked to escalate her complaint on 6 June 2024 and chased it on 17 June 2024 the landlord failed to escalate the complaint or reply to the resident. This was a failing under its complaints policy, in breach of paragraph 6.11 of the Code, and a failing in its communications. The landlord did acknowledge the stage 2 complaint within 5 working days once the Ombudsman asked it to provide a response. However, it asked for 20 working days in which to do so, without giving good reason which was a failing. Although under its policy it would have had 20 working days in which to respond, it had failed to escalate the complaint when it should have.
  3. Within its stage 2 response, provided within its requested 20 working days timeframe, the landlord correctly apologised for its failings in handling the resident’s stage 1 complaint and escalation request. It acknowledged the extra time and trouble it had caused and offered £400 compensation to the resident, which was in excess of the banded amount for severe failure under its compensation policy. As the landlord correctly accepted its failings and offered an apology and compensation, which was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, there was reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of multiple decants.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.
  4. In accordance with paragraphs 42.e and 42.f of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  5. In accordance with paragraphs 42.e and 42.f of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve damp and mould and associated repairs is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the maladministration detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £1,440 compensation made up of:
      1. £800 (inclusive of its £600 stage 2 offer) for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling multiple decants.
      2. £640 discretionary reimbursement for decant expenses it offered within its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
    3. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay directly to the resident the £400 it offered within its stage 2 response for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings if it has not already done so.
    2. Contact the resident to discuss the outstanding repairs and what steps it will take to complete them. The landlord could produce a schedule with timescales or appointments days and provide a copy to the resident.