Peabody Trust (202410316)

Decision
Case ID	202410316
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	4 February 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat within a block and believes the landlord is charging her for services that are not being provided. She has also reported damp, mould, and issues with her windows. The resident told the landlord that the mould is affecting her breathing and having a significant impact on her health and wellbeing.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs, including windows and damp and mould.
   2. Service charges and the services provided.
   3. The resident’s associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of repairs.
   2. Maladministration for the landlord’s handling of service charges.
   3. Reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord delayed investigating and completing the window and damp and mould repairs. However, the compensation it offered and the steps it took to try to resolve the issues were proportionate in the circumstances.
5. The landlord failed to review the resident’s service charges as it had promised and did not explain the legal basis for charging certain fees. Although it offered compensation, it did not fully resolve the problem, and the resident is still awaiting a satisfactory outcome to her complaint.
6. The landlord acknowledged delays in accepting the complaint and issuing its responses. The compensation it offered appropriately reflected the time and inconvenience the resident experienced.

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 must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: A senior member of staff provides the apology. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 04 March 2026
2	Service charge order The landlord must carry out a review of the resident’s service charge. The review must take into account: Whether the tenancy agreement allows for a furniture/equipment replacement fee and a management fee. Whether its review requires further reimbursement of service charges. Where the landlord is not permitted to charge the resident a service charge fee, it must: Refund these service charge fees together with interest at a rate of 3.6% (which is the average RPI change for the whole period) from the date the resident made each payment until the date the landlord repays the resident. This is to recognise that the landlord will have benefitted from the money in its accounts when the resident was not able to. The landlord must produce evidence to the Ombudsman as to how it has worked this out. Stop charging the service charge fee. How the landlord is monitoring the communal cleaning and garden maintenance services. The resident’s preferred communication methods. It should ensure that its rent and service charge reviews are sent via email if the resident requests this. The landlord must provide a copy of this review in writing to the resident and our service no later than the due date.	No later than 18 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss: Why it is charging a fixed service charge when the tenancy agreement states a variable service charge will be charged. It should explain the legal basis for charging this. Whether it will consider paying the £1000 compensation offered in its complaint responses directly to her and the implications this may have on her rent account.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
21 January 2024	The resident wrote to the landlord’s chief executive officer and her local MP. She raised concerns about: The services she was being charged for in her service charge. Damp and mould on the walls. She said it was damaging her belongs and affecting her breathing. Her windows needing replacing. A fault being recorded when her boiler was serviced, however, no one had updated her.
21 June 2024	The resident raised a complaint about her service charges, she asked the landlord why it was charging her a: Furniture and equipment replacement fee. Management fee. Cleaning fee. Grounds maintenance fee.
24 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. In its response it: Apologised for confusion about her service charge caused by missed letters. It would investigate potential issues with its mailing provider. Said it would carry out a review of the resident’s service charge account. Explained what services were provided under her service charge. Would review the resident’s reports about the condition of her home and take necessary actions to improve her living situation.
20 September 2024	We assisted the resident to raise a complaint to the landlord about issues she had raised on 21 January 2024.
7 October 2024	The landlord issued a further stage 1 response, in which it: Apologised that it did not take a complaint from the resident in January 2024 and that she had to approach HOS for assistance. Acknowledged that there was a delay with the boiler repair. It attended on 24 May 2024 and resolved the heating and hot water issues. Said it would arrange an inspection to investigate any poor workmanship. Confirmed the resident’s property had a communal ventilation system, which it would inspect.  Acknowledged the on-going damp and mould issues. Its contractors had recommended relocating the radiator and installing thermal boarding on the walls. A surveyor and a specialist contractor would need to inspect the property. It would then share the report and schedule of works with the resident. Confirmed that it had delayed the replacement of the windows at the resident’s request until the damp and mould is resolved. Offered £750 compensation: –          £600 for distress and inconvenience. –          £150 complaint handling.
28 October 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate all her complaints to stage 2.
4 December 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response, in which it: Reviewed the rent notifications for the last 7 years and concluded that the rents and service charges had been set in accordance with legislation. It was only charging costs via the service charge for services it was providing to the building. Confirmed that the resident was allocated her property under the rough sleepers initiative. This meant the landlord provides floor coverings and appliances inside the home. The replacement of these is covered under the furniture and equipment charge fee within her service charge. Said it could remove this fee from her service charge if she was happy to replace these items herself. As a good will gesture it would refund the last 3 years, which equated to £842.40. Felt the management fee was fair and reasonable. Said the cleaning services were bought back in house on 1 October 2024. It said that cleaning took place every Thursday and it provided a list of their duties. Reviewed estate inspections for the grounds maintenance and the site appeared to be well-kept. Offered £1000 compensation: –          £157.60 for time, trouble and inconvenience. –          £842.40 as a refund of the furniture and equipment charge.
17 December 2024	The landlord issued a further stage 2 response, in which it apologised for not resolving the residents concerns sooner. In its response it said:   Repairs The delays since the stage 1 response were because it was refused access for repairs. It had explored the option of arranging different surveyors and contractors due to the resident being unhappy with the previous assessments. It would like to arrange a date within the next 7 days for the works to begin or a new inspection with the new contractors. The glazers would install the windows and the contractors would carry out works outlined in their report. It understood the resident’s desire for a definite answer regarding how the mould would be addressed, it would identify the underlying cause once it had access.  Service charges It would email all rent and service charge notices. It would update the resident on its review of her account to ensure any overpayments are refunded. Redress It increased its offer of compensation to £800: –          £600 for distress and inconvenience –          £200 for its complaints handling. It apologised for the impact the delays have had on the residents health and well-being. Provided its insurance teams details if the resident wanted to make a personal injury claim.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us for investigation because she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. She said she wanted the landlord to move her permanently into alternative accommodation.
12 January 2026	The resident told the Ombudsman that she had serious concerns for her health due to the mould in the property. As a result, we have sent the landlord an Awaab’s Law notification letter, indicating that there could be a hazard which could fall under Awaab’s Law and the resident has indicated that there could be a material change due to the reported impact on his health.

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.

The landlord’s internal complaint procedure considered and responded to several issues. This investigation has therefore focused only on the matters the resident specifically asked us to look into.

Under our Scheme, we cannot consider complaints about the level of rent, the level of service charges, or the amount by which they have increased. Disputes about the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges fall within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT(PC)). The resident should seek legal advice about how to pursue concerns relating to increases in her rent and service charges.

We have also not investigated the landlord’s service of a possession notice. This was addressed by the landlord in a separate complaint, and from the evidence provided we cannot see this was escalated to stage 2. When we spoke to the resident on 12 January 2026, she also confirmed her main concerns were the outstanding repairs and service charge issues.

Additionally, the landlord opened a separate complaint in December 2024 regarding the resident’s concerns about her boiler. As this was handled through a different complaint process and was not brought to us as part of this complaint, we have not considered this issue in our investigation.

Complaint	Repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

7. The landlord’s repairs policy classifies non‑emergency issues such as damp and mould as routine repairs, with a target completion time of 28 days. After the resident reported rotten windows and damp and mould around them on 1 December 2023, the landlord arranged an inspection for 4 January 2024. The resident declined this appointment and asked for a surveyor instead. A surveyor inspected the property in February 2024 and recommended that the landlord dryline the walls or remove the plaster, re‑bond, skim and redecorate, and install new window frames and glazing.
8. The landlord did not raise the works recommended in the survey until May 2025, which was an unreasonable delay. This only occurred after the resident contacted the landlord’s CEO and her local MP, explaining that she had not received any update from the surveyor. This demonstrates poor record keeping and a failure to respond appropriately to the initial report.
9. The resident’s initial complaint stated that the mould was affecting her breathing and impacting her health and wellbeing. There is no evidence that the landlord assessed this risk or carried out a risk assessment. There is also no evidence that it explored or discussed interim measures, such as providing a dehumidifier, which may have prevented the damp and mould from worsening. The landlord did not offer appropriate support, which represents a significant failure.
10. We are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on the resident’s health or wellbeing. These matters are better suited to be considered by a court. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
11. The landlord acknowledged the delays in resolving the window repairs and the damp and mould issues, as well as the impact these had on the resident’s health and wellbeing. Between May and August 2024, it maintained regular contact with the resident and took a proactive approach, arranging joint inspections with its surveyor and contractors. The landlord kept her updated and shared the outcomes of these investigations. It also arranged a visit in August 2024 to discuss a works plan and the option of moving her into temporary accommodation. However, the resident declined, saying she no longer wanted people in her home and would not allow the windows to be replaced until the damp and mould had been addressed.
12. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 7 October 2024, the landlord said that, to put things right, it wished to carry out a more in‑depth inspection. It stated this was because previous inspections had not resolved the issues. It is unclear what the landlord meant, as no repairs had been completed. However, the contractor’s and surveyor’s investigations in June 2024 produced conflicting findings: the surveyor reported black residue throughout the property, while the contractor said there were no major signs of damp or mould. The resident declined another inspection, stating the landlord had visited previously and already knew about the repair issues.
13. The resident told the landlord that she wanted an explanation of how the damp and mould would be managed and treated before she would agree to further inspections or repairs. The evidence shows that the landlord attempted to reassure her that an inspection was necessary to identify the root cause of the damp and mould and to determine the required repairs. However, these attempts were not enough to rebuild the resident’s trust in the landlord.
14. We understand the resident’s concerns, as the surveyor had recommended extensive works that would require her to move into temporary accommodation. However, the landlord still had a legal obligation to inspect the property and carry out necessary repairs. Between October 2024 and its final complaint response in December 2024, the landlord remained in regular contact with the resident to discuss the recommended works. Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord made reasonable efforts to progress and complete the repairs.
15. The landlord took appropriate steps to improve its relationship and communication with the resident. It provided her with a single point of contact for the repairs and offered to use different surveyors and contractors in response to her concerns about previous poor workmanship. It also agreed to take her pet into account when arranging any temporary accommodation.
16. The resident asked our service to require the landlord to compensate her for belongings damaged by damp and mould. However, we do not make decisions about negligence, liability, or discrimination, nor can we order compensation in the way a court can. We also do not assess claims like an insurance provider or award financial redress for damaged personal items, as these should be covered by insurance. The landlord acted reasonably by providing its insurance details in its complaint response so the resident could submit a claim.
17. After the complaints process concluded, the resident asked the landlord to rehouse her as a remedy for the damp and mould. We cannot instruct a landlord to offer rehousing. This is because we do not have access to information about the availability of suitable vacant properties, nor do we know the priority needs of other applicants on the landlord’s housing list. We note that the landlord has provided the resident with information about her housing options and has agreed to offer advice and support.
18. In summary, there were delays in the landlord raising work orders for the window repair and the damp and mould issues. Although the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, it did not complete a risk assessment or provide appropriate support. These delays and the lack of a priority response fell short of the landlord’s repairs policy and its responsibilities under the HHSRS. While the repairs remain outstanding, this is because the resident has refused access, as she wishes to be rehoused.
19. The landlord acknowledged these failings during the complaints process and took proactive steps to improve communication and progress the repairs. It also apologised for the delays and offered £800 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord’s compensation policy states that awards between £600 and £1,000 may be offered where a resident has experienced extensive disruption. The £800 offered falls within this range and aligns with our remedies guidance. We consider this compensation to be a reasonable response to the failings identified up to the end of the complaints process.
20. In our communication with the resident she told us that she was unhappy that the compensation was applied to her rent account because she had accrued rent arrears. The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation will normally be credited against any outstanding debt, but that in exceptional circumstances it may consider making a direct payment instead. We have therefore recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss whether a direct payment would be appropriate in this case and what implications this would have on her rent account.
21. We wrote to the landlord on 28 January 2026 giving it notice that there could be a hazard (or material change) under the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. This requires the landlord to consider if Awaab’s law applies and assess if the damp and mould could be a potential significant or emergency hazard. The landlord should then consider what steps it should take.

Complaint	Service charges
Finding	Maladministration

22. In her complaint, the resident told the landlord she believed she was being charged for services that were not being provided. She asked for information about the furniture and equipment replacement fee, as well as the management fee. In June and December 2024, the landlord said it would review her rent account and service charges to identify and correct any discrepancies to ensure she was not being unfairly charged. However, at the time of this investigation, 18 months later, there is no evidence that the landlord has carried out this review.
23. In its complaint responses, the landlord gave conflicting explanations about the furniture and equipment replacement fee. In June 2024, it told the resident that the fee covered the replacement of communal furniture and equipment. The resident disputed this, explaining that her building has no communal areas. Then, in December 2024, the landlord stated that because the resident’s property was provided under a rough sleepers initiative, she was entitled to replacement floor coverings and appliances, and that the cost of these items was recovered through the furniture and equipment replacement fee included in her service charge.
24. The resident’s tenancy agreement dated 30 August 1993 contains no reference to the rough sleepers initiative. It also does not include any terms stating that the landlord is responsible for replacing the resident’s floor coverings or appliances. The resident told both the landlord and our service that she was never informed that she was entitled to have these items replaced. We can not see the landlord responded to these concerns.
25. The legal basis for charging a service charge must be set out in the tenancy agreement. As a matter of fairness, the agreement should clearly explain what services the landlord will provide and what costs the resident will be required to pay for. If a service charge is not included in the tenancy agreement, the landlord cannot lawfully recover that cost from the resident, even if the service is being provided.
26. Clause 1 (3)(b) of the resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord may charge for the services it provides. The tenancy sets out this will be via a ‘variable’ charge, and “the services [the landlord] would provide are set out in Schedule III to this agreement”. The following services are listed:
    1. Communal gardening
    2. Communal cleaning
    3. Lighting and water meter
    4. Materials.
27. In 2017, the resident’s former landlord merged with the current landlord. There is no evidence that the resident was issued with a new tenancy agreement following the merger. The landlord has provided us with rent and service charge review notices from 2018 onwards, which state that the resident pays a fixed service charge including a furniture and equipment replacement fee and a management fee. We wrote to the landlord on 15 January 2026 and asked it to provide evidence that it was entitled to levy these charges. The landlord said that the relevant service charge information was contained in the resident’s 1993 tenancy agreement. It is unclear which part of the tenancy agreement it has relied on.
28. It would not be fair for a landlord to omit details of services and their associated charges from a tenancy agreement at the start of a tenancy. While we have carefully considered the landlord’s position, there is no evidence to show that it is entitled to charge the furniture and equipment replacement fee or the management fee. This is primarily because the landlord has not demonstrated that these charges were ever included in the tenancy agreement or that they were brought to the resident’s attention at a later date, such as when the merger occurred in 2017. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to review its legal basis for claiming these fees. This will provide clarity and reassurance to the resident.
29. In her complaint, the resident also raised concerns about the standard of services provided under the communal cleaning fee and the grounds maintenance fee. In its complaint responses, the landlord said that these services were being carried out weekly and provided her with a list of the tasks included. While it was reasonable for the landlord to say it would investigate the services being delivered, it did not explain how it would monitor these services going forward or how it would keep residents updated.
30. Throughout her complaint and in emails to the landlord, the resident said she had not received her annual rent and service charge review letters. She explained that this meant she could not understand the charges or challenge them within the required timescales. The landlord acknowledged that there may have been issues with its external mailing provider and said it would investigate. It also agreed to email the review letters to the resident to avoid future problems. However, there is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident on the outcome of its investigation, and she told us that she still had not received the annual review by email.
31. In summary, the landlord failed to carry out the promised review of the resident’s rent and service charge account. It provided inconsistent information about the services included in the charges and did not demonstrate a legal basis for applying certain fees. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £157.60 in compensation for its poor communication and for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused. This amount is consistent with our remedies guidance and reflects the time and trouble the resident experienced during the complaints process. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it was taking sufficient steps to achieve a resolution or that it had learnt from the complaint. The resident has not been provided any evidence or reassurance that she has been charged correctly since the landlord took over her tenancy in 2017.
32. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to carry out a review of the resident’s service charge. In this review the landlord must confirm to the resident whether her tenancy agreement allows it to charge a furniture/equipment replacement fee and management fee. In the landlord’s final complaint response it refunded the resident £842.40 for 3 years of the furniture and equipment replacement fee. It said this was a goodwill gesture, rather than an acknowledgement that it was not entitled to levy this charge. As the landlord has not completed a review of the resident’s service charge or established a clear legal basis for applying this fee, it is unclear whether this refund was accurate or sufficient.
33. We have also made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss why it is charging a fixed service charge, as this will be confusing for the resident when her tenancy agreement states she will be charged a variable service charge.
34. In our learning section, we have also asked the landlord to improve its communication with residents and ensure that its staff are properly trained to respond to enquiries or complaints about service charges.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

35. The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. A formal response should then be issued within 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and within 20 working days for stage 2 complaints.
36. On 21 January 2024, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord’s CEO. The landlord did not log the complaint on its system until 27 February 2024. Although it attempted to contact the resident several times in April 2024 to discuss the matter, there is no evidence that it acknowledged the complaint in writing. This was not in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
37. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 June 2024—five months after the complaint was raised. This was an unreasonable delay. The response also failed to address all of the issues the resident had raised. As a result, the resident submitted a further complaint about her service charges on 21 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged this complaint the same day and issued a stage 1 response on 24 June 2024, which was in line with its target response times.
38. The resident contacted our service for help with her complaint. On 30 September 2024, we wrote to the landlord asking it to open a complaint about the issues the resident had raised on 21 January 2024. We recognise that this may have caused some confusion, as the landlord had already addressed some of these matters through its complaints process. The landlord then issued a further stage 1 response on 7 October 2024, in line with its target response timescales.
39. On 28 October 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate all of her complaints. Although the landlord acknowledged the escalation on the same day, the resident then received additional acknowledgements in November and December 2024. The landlord did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations regarding when she would receive its response.
40. Throughout October and November 2024, the landlord provided the resident with several updates on her complaint and the outstanding issues. This demonstrated that it was seeking to understand her concerns and was taking steps to improve communication and its relationship with her.
41. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 4 December 2024 regarding the service charge and the services being provided. It then issued a further stage 2 response on 17 December 2024 addressing both service charges and repairs. Although the landlord investigated all aspects of the complaint, its approach would have been clearer had it provided a single, consolidated response setting out the actions it was taking to put things right.
42. In summary, there were delays in the landlord accepting the resident’s complaint, and it did not always acknowledge the complaint or issue its responses within its agreed timescales. The landlord also issued multiple responses that covered the same issues, which made it harder for the resident to understand the outcome and see the path to resolution. However, we recognise that this was likely influenced by our involvement.
43. The landlord apologised for the delays and offered the resident a total of £200 in compensation. This amount is in line with our Remedies Guidance and adequately reflects the failures identified in this investigation, as well as the time and trouble caused to the resident. We therefore consider this to be reasonable redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

44. The resident told us she had spoken to several different staff members about the repairs in her home, but they did not always appear to understand her situation. We acknowledge that staff turnover is outside the landlord’s control, and this issue is more likely to arise when repairs remain outstanding for a long time. However, the landlord must ensure that staff record repair information accurately so that residents are not adversely affected.

Communication

45. The landlord’s communication with the resident about her service charge concerns was poor. It should ensure that staff receive adequate training on service charges so they can respond effectively to residents’ queries and complaints.