Peabody Trust (202347446)

Decision
Case ID	202347446
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	29 June 2026

Background

The resident moved to the property, a 2-bedroom flat, in March 2023. Vulnerabilities are reported including sickle cell disease and depression. The resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) by an upstairs neighbour not long after moving in. On 24 September 2023 the fire brigade responded to a leak in the neighbour’s flat, affecting the property below. Shortly after, the resident reported damp and mould in the property.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

Reports of ASB.
Reports of a leak and associated damp and mould.
Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
We find severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and associated damp and mould.

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

We found the landlord provided reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures.

Summary of reasons

The landlord was proactive in trying to resolve the serious reports of ASB. However, it did not agree action plans at appropriate points or consider temporary accommodation (TA) in contravention of its policies.
The landlord did not act with sufficient urgency to address the leak and associated damp and mould. It did not consider if TA was appropriate at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord did not address all the resident’s complaint points. Its responses were outside the timeframes set out in its complaint policy and our complaint handling code (the Code). However, it has apologised and provided sufficient redress to put the failures right.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord’s Chief Executive Officer must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology must be specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It must have due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 July 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence it has paid directly to the resident £1,420 (inclusive of the £720 already awarded) made up of: £700 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failures handling ASB. £720 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failures addressing the leak, damp and mould.	No later than 27 July 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £147.36 for each full week (inclusive of the £300 already paid) between 22 October 2023 and 12 April 2024, or the date she took up alternative accommodation (whichever is earliest).	No later than 27 July 2026
4	Action order The landlord must provide evidence it has considered its liability to compensate the resident for damaged items and associated costs, in line with its compensation policy. It should provide us and the resident with a clear explanation for its position. If it is unable to do so it must provide evidence of its attempts and a revised timeframe.	No later than 27 July 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £300 compensation previously offered for the impact of its complaint handling failures.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 May to 30 November 2023	On 26 May 2023 the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of ASB and its impact. Her support worker reiterated this on 15 September 2023. The resident followed this up on 30 November 2023 and said: the landlord had not addressed mould that affected her health she wanted compensating for damaged belongings and the costs of moving items she wanted the landlord to reimburse moving-in costs, rent and redecoration expenses, including flooring.
3 January 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response and said it: would discuss the closure of her ASB case would not provide TA or reimburse moving costs as a survey found the property was habitable, but recommended further investigation had arranged an air quality test for 9 January 2024 was not responsible for flooring and would not reimburse any further decoration costs signposted her to its insurer if she felt it was liable for damages and said it could not address liability through the complaint process.
3 to 9 January 2024	The resident escalated the complaint, saying: she disputed the property was habitable and asked for supporting evidence no one attended on 9 January 2024 after she took time off work she felt the landlord disregarded the outcome of a survey of 11 October 2023.
25 April 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said: it discussed the closure of her ASB case with her on 9 January 2024 photographs from a survey in January 2024 showed no visible mould or damp on ceilings or walls. it apologised for missing the air quality appointment and said it would assess the property instead. It was unable to treat damp and mould until it found the root cause. it had resolved the leak and she could move back in. it acknowledged repair and complaint handling delays and awarded compensation of £1,320 for the impact of these.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us she slept in her car until social services intervened and arranged alternative accommodation.

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 ASB
Finding	Maladministration

It is not our role to determine the validity of the resident’s ASB reports. Instead, we assess if the landlord acted in line with its policies and if its response was reasonable. The landlord defines ASB as conduct causing harassment, alarm, distress or nuisance. Its ASB policy includes noise nuisance, defined as behaviour that unreasonably and substantially interferes with the use or enjoyment of a home.
The resident reported noise nuisance shortly after her tenancy started. The landlord’s ASB policy says it should assess the risk and vulnerability of those who report ASB to identify any safeguarding and support needs. Records show the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and established she was receiving ongoing support. It told her to keep a diary of noise incidents. However, we have not seen that it agreed an action plan, in line with its ASB policy.
On 14 March 2023 the resident reported ongoing noise nuisance, believed to be caused by her neighbour’s lack of carpet. She also said the neighbour left the communal door open for prolonged periods. She feared this could increase the risk of her home being burgled.
The landlord responded within its 2-working day target. It told the resident it had warned the neighbour to keep the communal door closed and would explore carpeting her flat to reduce noise transfer. It asked the resident to record all ASB and explained how to use its noise application.
These actions were appropriate. They were in line with the landlord’s ASB policy whichsays it will take a tenancy management approach to remind residents of their responsibilities. We do not know if the neighbour’s tenancy agreement required her to have carpeted flooring. However, the landlord was proactive in trying to facilitate this. While it measured the neighbour’s flat for carpet, records do not show if it was fitted. Evidence suggests the neighbour may have declined this offer.
Shortly after, the resident reported her neighbour pushed her to the floor. The landlord responded promptly. It warned the neighbour it may take tenancy enforcement action and to avoid any contact with the resident. It also told the resident to report the incident to the police. It considered an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement for the neighbour but we do not know if it pursued this further.
Overall, this response was appropriate, as the neighbour may have committed a criminal offence and breached her tenancy. However, the landlord’s ASB policy says it will also consider the vulnerabilities of perpetrators of ASB when deciding interventions. Although we cannot detail the landlord’s actions in respect of the neighbour, due to data protection reasons, we are satisfied its response to ASB at that time was in line with its policy.
Between 1 and 3 April 2023 the resident reported that the ASB continued. She said it was affecting her wellbeing and noise nuisance was preventing her from sleeping. A healthcare professional also told the landlord the resident was very distressed. While the landlord responded within its policy timeframe, it delayed enabling the noise application for 3 weeks.
A consultant psychiatrist letter of 12 April 2023 said the resident was experiencing severe depression alongside chronic physical health conditions. They said her recovery was affected by ASB and urged the landlord to act promptly. We do not know when the landlord received this letter.
ASB escalated on 19 April 2023 and police arrested the neighbour for racially aggravated harassment and common assault against the resident. The landlord liaised with the police to determine any safeguarding risks and sought CCTV footage. This was in line with its ASB policy which says it will support police investigations.
Shortly after, the resident reported the incident had left her hospitalised overnight. She reported further noise nuisance and said her neighbour had removed communal door locksand she feared for her life.
The landlord arranged TA for 5 nights from 24 April 2023.It later said it did this outside of its policy. However, its alternative accommodation policy allowed for this course of action. It said the landlord could offer emergency TA when the health and safety of a household is at risk or there would be safeguarding concerns should they remain in their home.
The landlord also replaced the door locks within repair policy timeframes. It contacted the police again and said it could not provide any supporting CCTV footage as the neighbour had turned off the resident’s electrics causing the system to fail. The landlord moved the CCTV system shortly after.
The landlord updated the resident that day and advised her to contact the police if she felt at risk. It arranged a home safety assessment and to install a video doorbell. It said it would consider a Management Transfer (MT) and she could approach the local authority if she needed immediate rehousing.
The landlord’s offer to consider a MT was appropriate. It was in line with its rehousing policy which says it can grant a MT when a resident is experiencing harassment or hate crime. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider extending TA if it believed there were safeguarding concerns while the resident remained in her home.
On 25 April 2023 the landlord warned the neighbour about her behaviour. It said her failure to comply may lead to a Community Protection Notice or a Notice of Seeking Possession. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy which says it can consider legal action to tackle ASB.
On 26 April 2023 the landlord gave the resident an action plan. It outlined proposed actions that included legal action against the neighbour and consideration of a MT. Records do not show if the landlord agreed the action plan with the resident. The landlord discussed the plan in a multi-agency safeguarding meeting arranged by social services the following day.
Between 29 April and 1 May 2023, the police told the landlord ASB continued. They reported concerns for the resident’s safety and said harassment was having a major impact on her health. They said she was very vulnerable and should not be living in the same address as the neighbour. They asked the landlord to move the resident as soon as possible. Again, we have not seen that the landlord considered TA at this time.
Between 9 May and 2 June 2023 the resident continued to report ongoing ASB. This included noise nuisance and allegations her neighbour was taking her mail and packages. She said she was missing payments as a result. She said she was sofa surfing and felt ignored. The landlord replied on 2 June 2023 that it would review recent CCTV footage. It said it was considering legal action and the resident should complain if she was dissatisfied. However, she had already complained by that point and received no response.
On 9 June 2023 the landlord provided the resident with a video doorbell. Evidence suggests it also reinforced her windows and door for extra security. It approved the MT the same day. The application noted it was unsafe for the resident to stay at the address while the landlord addressed the situation legally. It said it had also given the resident a letter for the local authority’s homelessness prevention unit (HPU) so they could consider immediate rehousing.
The landlord’s alternative accommodation policy says it will work closely with local authorities to provide the most suitable accommodation, if it is unable to rehouse residents. However, again we have not seen that it considered providing TA or whether there were any reasons it could not do so. The landlord later said it could take 2 years to find a MT property and the resident later reported the HPU could not help as she was not homeless.
The resident continued to report ASB in July 2023 and that it was affecting her health and employment. The landlord reviewed its action plan to include monthly welfare checks. It updated the resident and visited her to say it was monitoring the situation and liaising with police and other agencies. Although the landlord obtained CCTV footage, this did not show the alleged criminal damage.
The police emailed the landlord again on 25 July 2023 as they were concerned another serious altercation would happen. They said they hoped the landlord could find a temporary solution or explore a new avenue towards resolution.
Shortly after the resident reported the neighbour had been stealing her parcels again and gluing her locks. The landlord acted on this in line with its policy, although we are unable to detail what it did due to data protection. It continued to ask the resident to record ASB and referred her to support. It spoke with her on 31 August and 4 September 2023 and advised her to call the police if she felt threatened.
Between 14 and 28 September 2023 the resident reported further ASB. This included allegations of racial abuse, criminal damage and that her neighbour walked round with a hammer. She again reported sleeping in her car as she felt her life was in danger. She said she had been hospitalised after trying to take her own life and felt the landlord ignored her requests for TA.
Her support worker and the local authority’s social care department also asked the landlord to prioritise rehousing to prevent harm to the resident’s health and safety. The landlord visited the neighbour and asked her to attend an office interview, but she did not attend. While it again offered to support the resident with emergency accommodation through the HPU, it did not consider TA under its own policy provision.
On 18 October 2023 the neighbour decided to end her tenancy. As a result, the landlord closed the ASB case and told the resident this on 13 November 2023.
The landlord’s complaint responses did not address the resident’s complaints spanning 6 months about multiple aspects of its handling of ASB. They only referenced the closure of the ASB case and an offer to discuss this. Therefore, the landlord missed an opportunity to put right the failures identified in this report.
In considering our determination, we recognise the landlord is not responsible for the neighbour’s actions, or the impact they had on the resident. We understand the landlord needed to follow due process for any legal action to evict the resident and that, for reasons we cannot disclose, this process was likely to take some time.
We also recognise the landlord was responsive to the resident’s reports. Many of its actions to resolve ASB were appropriate, including its attempts to improve security, issuing warnings and agreeing to move the resident on a permanent basis. We also recognise its efforts to engage with other agencies to try to resolve the issue.
However, its failure to agree meaningful action plans at all appropriate points meant it was not as proactive as it could have been. It meant the resident was not reassured of all its plans to resolve ASB or when this may happen. Further, it was unable to resolve the ASB. Given the multiple safeguarding concerns reported, it should have considered TA beyond the short period of April 2023.
While the impact of this failure may meet the threshold for a finding of severe maladministration, our finding is mitigated by the landlord’s other significant efforts to resolve ASB. We order the landlord to apologise for its failings handling ASB. We also order it to pay the resident £700 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the maladministration. This is in line with our compensation guidance for failures that have a significant impact on the resident and substantial redress is needed to put things right.

Complaint	The resident’s reports of a leak and associated damp and mould.
Finding	Severe maladministration

Following their attendance of 24 September 2023, the fire brigade reported that the neighbour had turned her basin taps on full, resulting in considerable water penetrating the resident’s bathroom light. They isolated the electrics and turned off the water.
The landlord attended the following day and made safe the bathroom electrics. This was in line with its repair policy which aims to make safe emergency repairs reported outside office hours within 24 hours. It raised follow up work to replace electrical points and fittings,once the water ingress had dried. However, we have not seen it did so within its 28 day repair policy timeframe for non-emergency repairs, or thereafter. The operative also noted the bathroom floor was damaged due to the volume of water.
On 26 September 2023 the resident asked the landlord for TA. She said she had no electricity in her bathroom and had not been able to shower for 3 days. While the landlord’s alternative accommodation policy says it can arrange emergency TA when flood damage makes a home uninhabitable, we have not seen it considered whether it was appropriate at that point.
The local authority’s social care department contacted the landlord the next day. They were concerned it had not considered TA while it addressed the effects of the leak. They said stress made the resident’s sickle cell disease worse and she had been hospitalised because of this several times over the last 6 months. This was supported by a specialist who previously told the landlord sickle cell sufferers need housing that is free from damp and mould.
Internal emails said the landlord visited the resident on 28 September 2023 and she had heating and electricity. It is unclear whether the landlord had reinstated electricity in the bathroom. On 5 October 2023 the resident reported mould in her bathroom and on some of her clothes. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will investigate such reports. The resident said it attended on 11 October 2023, in line with its non-emergency repair timeframe. She believes the surveyor told her she needed TA.
We have not seen a record of a visit on this day. However, surveying notes of 23 October 2023 do refer to an earlier visit. They noted there was a strong damp smell, mould in multiple areas and visible damp damage. They noted the kitchen subfloor also showed signs of damage. They recommended investigating the root cause before treating mould. They noted it was an emergency due to the resident’s health conditions.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will temporarily rehouse people in critical situations where there is a risk to their health and safety. Again, we have not seen evidence the landlord considered doing so at that time. It is reasonable to expect it would have, given the resident’s vulnerabilities and reports she could not wash and was sleeping in her car. Further, the landlord did not plan to treat mould until it investigated further.
A further inspection of 26 October 2023 could not find the source of the mould but noted the smell of damp was very apparent. The inspector noted they were awaiting access to survey the neighbour’s flat. Internal emails of 30 November 2023 show works remained delayed due to access issues. The landlord has not provided details of its steps to secure access or evidence to show it was trying to address the situation with reasonable urgency.
After the resident again reported sleeping in her car, a property manager considered TA on 2 January 2024. This was almost 3 months after she told the landlord she was unable to stay in the property due to mould. The property manager reviewed the case with the surveyor and documented that ‘based on the photographs, it appeared the property was habitable’. This suggests the review took place remotely and the property manager did not physically inspect the property.
The property manager noted photographs showed no visible mould or damp on ceilings or walls. This contradicted earlier surveys which said damp and mould were present. Further, we have not seen the landlord had treated damp or mould so it is unclear how it could have been resolved. In addition, the first surveyor believed issues ‘ran deeper than what was visible on the surface’. This questioned the reliability of using photographs to decide the habitability of the property.
That being said, we acknowledge the landlord intended to carry out an air quality survey. This may have ruled out any underlying hazards. However, this did not go ahead. While the landlord agreed to assess the property instead, we have again not seen that it did so.
The landlord’s complaint responses incorrectly suggested this review took place in the property. While the resident questioned this, and said no one attended that day, the landlord reiterated its position. It did not address her questions as to why it disregarded the outcome of earlier surveys. It also did not respond to her enquiry as to whether a neighbourhood manager was suitably qualified to report on damp and mould, albeit we have not seen a copy of that associated report.
Between 6 and 22 February 2024 the resident told the landlord water ingress remained, she was still unable to use the bathroom and there was no electricity (again it is unclear if this was solely in the bathroom). She said a surveyor told her the mould would be treated that month but nothing had been done. We have not seen that the landlord completed remedial work until 12 April 2024. This was more than 5 months outside it’s 28-day repair timeframe.
We cannot determine with certainty whether the property was habitable throughout the period repairs were outstanding. However, the landlord’s policies allowed it to provide TA where a household’s health and safety was at risk. The resident had known medical vulnerabilities that professionals warned were worsened by damp and mould. She had repeatedly told the landlord she could not safely remain in the property.
Despite this, the landlord did not make a timely, evidence-based assessment of whether the resident needed TA. This was a significant failure that had a seriously detrimental effect on the vulnerable resident. It left her in prolonged uncertainty and we understand why she felt unable to stay in the property believing it would adversely affect her health.
We cannot assess whether damp and mould impacted the resident’s health as we are not medical experts. The resident could seek independent advice about this or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings, including any distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it should investigate whether its actions or inactions caused or worsened any claimed damage before referring the matter to its insurers. Despite acknowledging repair delays, we have not seen evidence that the landlord considered if these caused or worsened the resident’s claimed damages and associated costs. Instead, the landlord signposted her to its insurers and said she was responsible for replacing flooring and redecorating. This was a failure.
The landlord told us the resident claimed on its insurance but no payment was made. As we have not seen the landlord properly considered if its actions contributed to the claimed losses, we order it to do so now.
We acknowledge the landlord has recognised some of its failings. Its compensation award of £720 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by repair delays and missed appointments, was appropriate. It is in line with our compensation guidance for when a serious failure in service has a significant physical and emotional impact on a resident and substantial redress is needed to put this right.
However, the landlord has not recognised its failure to properly consider TA. We order it to apologise for this, but do not order anymore compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by this. This is because it has already paid substantial redress and recognised its failureshad a significant impact on the resident.
While the landlord has provided appropriate compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, it has not recognised the full extent of the resident being unable to stay in the property.
We order the landlord to pay further compensation to recognise the loss of use of the property. This should be at the Regulator of Social Housing’s standard weekly rate of £147.36 a week for a 2-bedroom property in the resident’s area. It should take into account the £300 already paid for loss of enjoyment of the property. It must be paid from 22 October 2023 (when it should have completed repairs or remedies) until 12 April 2024 or the date her alternative accommodation started (whichever is earliest).
We cannot order payments for loss of use of a property when alternative accommodation is provided. The resident told us the local authority arranged TA but we have been unable to find out when it started. The resident may need to provide evidence of this to the landlord to enable it to calculate the compensation. We would not expect the resident to have to disclose her new address when doing so.

Complaint	The associated complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint policy. At the time of the resident’s complaint, it aimed to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. The Code (at that time) said these timeframes apply from when the landlord receives the complaint.
There is no evidence the landlord replied to the resident’s complaint of 26 May 2023. Its acknowledgment of the support worker’s complaint was 12 working days outside its complaint policy timeframe. This led the support worker to contact the landlord and chase a reply. While the landlord apologised for the delay, attributing it to a high volume of contacts, it did not tell the support worker when he could expect to receive a response.
The support worker chased a response again on 30 November 2023 and contacted us on 22 December 2023. He told us he was leaving the organisation without receiving a reply to his complaint. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 January 2024. This was 154 working days after the resident’s first complaint and 75 working days after the support worker’s complaint. This was significantly outside the timeframes specified in the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code.
Within its complaint response, the landlord did not address the multiple issues raised about its handling of ASB. It only arranged for someone to contact the resident and discuss the closure of the case.
The landlord asked the resident to explain why she was escalating her complaint on 9 January 2024. This was inappropriate as she had already done so. It delayed resolution of the complaint and caused the resident further time and trouble. The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint the following day. It apologised for the delay doing so and attributed this to staff sickness.
The resident chased the complaint on 7 February 2024. While the landlord responded and told her to expect a response in 10 working days, we do not know when it did so as the record provided to our office is undated.
However, the landlord contacted the resident again on 4 March 2024 and said it needed to extend the reply date by 10 working days. It said it was doing so in line with its complaint policy. However, this said it should not extend the time taken to reply by more than 10 days unless there was a good reason. It said any such extension should be agreed by both parties. At that point the response was already more than 10 days overdue. We have not seen it provided a good reason for any further extensions or that the resident agreed to one.
The resident contacted our office on 21 March 2024 as she had still not received a reply. This caused more time and trouble. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 50 working days outside its complaint policy timeframe and the timeframe set out in the Code.
In identifying if there has been maladministration, we consider if the landlord has recognised its shortcomings. If so, we look at whether it has put right its failings and if its remedy was appropriate. We will not find maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged its failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
The landlord has apologised for complaint handling failures. It has awarded £300 for the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused by them. This is above the amount recommended in our compensation guidance for when a complaint response is delayed by months, affects the timely resolution of the dispute and substantial redress is needed to put things right. Therefore, we find the landlord has provided reasonable redress to put right its complaint handling failures.

Learning

Knowledge information management (KIM – record keeping)

While the landlord provided sufficient records for us to provide a robust determination, its repair records were often unclear and it was difficult to ascertain when work and inspections took place. Our centre for learning has further resources to help landlord’s keep accurate records, make clear decisions, and provide a safer, more reliable service for residents.

Communication

We have not seen the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of its planned ASB actions or her complaints. Our centre for learning has resources to help landlord’s create stronger, more positive relationships and a safer, more supportive housing experience for everyone. These include complaint handling training resources to help landlord’s resolve complaints early using our dispute resolution principles.