Peabody Trust (202411494)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411494

Peabody Trust

30 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports that the wet room floor was uneven, and water from the shower leaked out of the room.
2. Reported concerns regarding electrical safety and installed extraction equipment.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in January 2024. The property is a 1 bedroom flat with a wet room. The property was a new build and was still under the latent defect period with the developer at the time of the complaint. The resident lives alone. The landlord is aware that the resident is disabled. Known additional needs include mobility and breathing problems, and mental health problems. The resident is also a wheelchair user.
On 5 March 2024 the resident reported to the landlord:
1. The wet room floor was uneven and water from the shower would not drain away. This meant water would leak out of the wet room door and pool on the floor outside of the room. As a result he was unable to use the shower.
2. Fused switches in the kitchen were broken.
On 21 May 2024 the resident reported the extractor fan filters were “black” and needed to be replaced. He was concerned regarding the impact this might have on his breathing.
On 13 June 2024 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. He said it had not contacted him, or done anything in response to his reports regarding the wet room floor, the fused switches and the extractor fan filters.
On 11 July 2024 the landlord ordered new extractor fan filters for the resident. He agreed to install these himself.
On 24 July 2024 the landlord informed the resident works to the wet room floor would start on 12 August 2024.
On 9 August 2024 it informed him it was unlikely the works would commence on 12 August 2024, but it would provide a waterproof barrier for him so he could use the shower in the interim.
The landlord repaired the fused switches in August 2024. The records provided do not give an exact date when this was done.
On 25 September 2024 the landlord told the resident it would put the property developer on notice, so that it could then carry out the necessary works to the wet room floor itself, and recharge the developer.
On 5 November 2024 the landlord told the resident the developer had appointed a specialist contractor to complete works to the wet room floor. The contractor would carry out a survey on 8 November 2024. Works were due to commence on 18 November 2024.
On 12 November 2024 the landlord told the resident work to the wet room floor would not start on 18 November 2024. Following the 8 November 2024 survey it had been determined the planned works were insufficient to remedy the problem.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 14 November 2024. It said the proposed works to the wet room floor had been deemed inadequate to remedy the problem. While the developer had sent an alternative proposal, which the landlord was considering, works would not be completed before Christmas. It acknowledged the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident, and apologised for this. While it would make an offer of compensation when the works were completed, it offered an interim payment of £150.
On 19 November 2024 the resident told the landlord he wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2. He said there had been multiple inspections, and plans for works that had been cancelled, and £150 was not enough to recognise that he had not had use of the shower since January 2024.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 20 January 2025. This included the following:
1. It acknowledged it had unreasonably delayed responding to the resident’s reports regarding the fused switches and extractor fan filters, and apologised for this.
2. It acknowledged the installation faults in the resident’s wet room required urgent resolution, which it had not provided.
3. It had attempted a temporary measure to contain the water and prevent flooding, but this was removed as it was a trip hazard. There were no further temporary solutions it could offer. It understood the resident had to continue to adapt how he maintained personal hygiene.
4. It apologised that its decision-making process had been slow, and that it did not yet have a solution.
5. It was in discussions with the developer. They had suggested installing fixed shower screens and heavy-duty shower curtains. It had rejected this due to concerns about accessibility and sustainability.
6. It had sought guidance from an independent contractor, and was considering their recommendations.
7. It apologised for poor complaint handling, as a result of staff not understanding the process and high staff turnover.
8. It offered a total of £2,127.76 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £500 for distress and inconvenience in relation to the fuse switches, the extractor fan filters, and the resident being unable to use the shower.
  2. £1,227.76 room loss allowance, which represented 10% of the total rent paid between January 2024 and January 2025.
  3. £400 for the resident’s time and trouble as a result of its poor complaint handling.
On 24 March 2025 the resident confirmed he wanted the Housing Ombudsman Service to investigate.
To date required works to the wet room have not been completed. On 9 May 2025 the landlord told the resident there was a plan for works, but it did not know when these would commence.
The resident has told us that he has been unable to use the shower since the start of the tenancy, so it has been difficult to maintain his personal hygiene. As a result of this, and his perception that the landlord does not care, his physical and mental health have got worse. He has indicated that he recently found alternative accommodation and is waiting for a confirmed moving date.

Assessment and findings

Wet room

The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s responsibility under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, heating, water heating, and sanitation installations, including electric wiring and sockets.
The landlord’s new homes customer care and defects management policy defines a defect as “an aspect of the new building which is not performing as it should and may need attention or repair.” The policy says the landlord is responsible for rectifying identified issues, and that during the defects liability period (usually the first 24 months), the developer would be responsible for remedying defects at their own cost. The policy says the landlord aims to resolve defects using the following categories:
1. Urgent defects – small repairs that need to be carried out urgently to prevent damage to property – to be completed within 5 working days (examples included leaks in sinks, baths, or basins).
2. Non-urgent defects – small repairs where a defect is less urgent but has potential to cause damage to the property – to be completed within 20 working days.
3. Where it is unable to resolve defects within the listed timescales, it will communicate this clearly to the customer and provide regular fortnightly updates until the matter is resolved.
The resident first reported the wet room issue on 5 March 2024. He indicated that using the shower caused a leak which had the potential to damage the property. In order to avoid this the resident was unable to use the shower, which was the only such cleansing facility in the flat. The landlord was aware the resident is disabled and had difficulty maintaining personal hygiene as a result of not being able to use the shower. Given the impact on the resident, and risk of damage to the property, the landlord should have acted quickly and effectively, including promptly contacting the resident, carrying out an inspection, and putting in place a plan to rectify the problem. As this was a defect reported during the defect liability period, we would have expected the landlord to liaise with the developer and the resident, in order to ensure that repairs were appropriately managed and completed in a timely manner and to a satisfactory standard.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord took any actions, or communicated with the resident at all in response to his report, until after he made a formal complaint on 13 June 2024. On 18 June 2024, more than 3 months after the resident’s first report, it told him it would “chase the developer.” This long delay was unreasonable, particularly given the impact on the resident of being unable to shower, and contributed to the resident’s perception that the landlord did not care.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord has not provided any copies of its correspondence to the developer, and has only provided one email from the developer to the landlord, sent in November 2024.
It is therefore not possible to accurately determine when the landlord first made contact with the developer. There is reference in the resident’s correspondence to the landlord, dated 8 July 2024, to “the developer blaming the landlord, and the landlord blaming the developer.” In the absence of evidence, we cannot conclude that contact was made any earlier than July 2024, and this was far too late, given the resident reported the issue in March 2024.
Once contact with the developer had been made, the steps taken to remedy the wet room defect were poorly planned and managed. The resident was initially told on 24 July 2024 that works would start on 12 August 2024, then on 9 August 2024 he was informed these works would not go ahead. On 5 November 2024 he was told that works would start on 18 November 2024, but then told on 12 November 2024 that these works would not go ahead as it had been determined the planned works would be insufficient to remedy the problem.
The landlord has acknowledged its decision-making process was slow, and apologised for this. It is accepted that the wet room issues may have fallen under the developer’s defect liability period. However, the resident’s tenancy was with the landlord and it remained the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the defects were appropriately rectified. As the landlord has not provided its correspondence with the developer, it is not possible to fully assess whether the landlord took reasonable steps to hold the developer to account.
On 25 September 2024 the landlord told the resident it would put the developer on notice, so that it could then carry out the necessary works to the wet room floor itself, and recharge the developer. This was an appropriate step, but as more than 6 months had passed since the resident first reported the issue, it was taken too late. It is unclear from the evidence why the landlord did not then follow through with carrying out the work itself. It was unreasonable that it did not do so, especially given the impact on the resident of being unable to use the shower. As a result the resident suffered further inconvenience and distress.
The landlord’s new homes customer care and defects management policy said where it was unable to resolve defects within the listed timescales, it would communicate this clearly to the customer and provide regular fortnightly updates until the matter was resolved. The evidence shows it failed to do so. It did not communicate with the resident at all between his first report of the issue on 5 March 2024, and its acknowledgement of his complaint on 18 June 2024, when it told him it would “chase the developer.” There was then a further gap until 11 July 2024, when it provided an update. Throughout the time between the resident’s first report of the issue, and the stage 2 response, there continued to be long gaps in communication of weeks to months, with the landlord providing no information, at times despite the resident making contact to request an update.
There is no evidence that the landlord advised the resident of the likely timescale for remedial works to be completed, until it advised him on 24 July 2024 that works were due to commence on 12 August 2024. It provided no further information regarding likely timescale after these works were cancelled, until it told him on 5 November 2024 that works were due to start on 18 November 2024. After these works were cancelled, it was appropriate that it told the resident in the stage 1 response that works would not be completed before Christmas, However, it gave no indication of likely timescale. It therefore failed to manage the resident’s expectations or set out when a remedy might be fully effected, and this contributed to the resident’s frustration and stress.
When the landlord did communicate with the resident about the wet room issue, it did not consistently provide sufficient information for the resident to understand what was happening, or the reason for the delay. For example, there is no evidence it explained what works were due to be carried out in August 2024, and why these were subsequently cancelled. There is no evidence the landlord explained to the resident why it had decided not to go ahead with completing works itself and recharging the developer, after putting them on notice.
Given the resident’s inability to use the shower, and his stated concerns regarding being unable to properly attend to his personal hygiene, we would expect the landlord to have put in place temporary measures to mitigate the impact on the resident. On 9 August 2024 it informed him it would provide a waterproof barrier for him so he could use the shower, but this was later removed as it was deemed to be a “trip hazard”. In January 2025 the developer suggested installing fixed shower screens and heavy-duty shower curtains. The landlord rejected this as a permanent solution, due to concerns about accessibility and sustainability. However, it could have considered this as a temporary measure to allow use of the shower until a permanent remedy could be effected. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered any other mitigating measures, such as providing temporary accommodation, or other temporary facilities on site.
The landlord acknowledged failures in its handling of this matter, at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints procedure, and apologised for these. This was appropriate. It is agreed by all parties that works to the wet room remain outstanding to date, and that is more than 15 months after the resident first reported the issue. The same issue was reportedly present in multiple home in the development.
The landlord’s offer of 10% refund of the rent paid between January 2024 and January 2025 was insufficient. The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy said 25% of the rent would be refunded for loss of a bathroom, with provision to reduce this where a resident experienced partial loss of the room. Although the resident still had use of the toilet and wash basin, the figure of 10% would suggest that the resident had a lesser loss of amenity than he in fact had, being unable to use the shower. The resident is disabled and a wheelchair user, and requires an accessible wet room shower in order to properly maintain his personal hygiene.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment. The Ombudsman does not have the power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Act, only the courts can make that decision. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties under the Act. Where on notice, it must consider when making decisions and providing a service whether its decision making / actions could place the person at a particular disadvantage due to their vulnerabilities. The landlord was also required to consider appropriate reasonable adjustments.
Part 11 of the Equality Act created the ‘Public Sector Equality Duty’ which requires public bodies to have ‘due regard’ to equality and the elimination of any behaviours prohibited under the Act. It is clear from the evidence provided that landlord failed to carry out a public sector duty assessment and proportionality assessment. This is a significant failing given the clearly known additional needs of the resident. Despite the knowledge of the resident’s needs there is no evidence that the actuality of the resident’s experience altered in any material manner and they continued to experience a significant loss of dignity across an extended period.
The landlord’s handling of the matter has been characterised by:
1. A lack of the appropriate level of urgency given the impact on the resident.
2. Slow decision-making process.
3. Poor planning and management, with 2 sets of planned works being scheduled and then cancelled.
4. Lack of responsibility taken for ensuring the works were done.
5. Poor communication with the resident.
6. Insufficient efforts to mitigate the impact on the resident.
7. Failure to consider its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010.
Cumulatively, the above failures constitute severe maladministration on the part of the landlord. As a result the landlord is ordered to apologise, pay a total of £4,129.56 compensation, and carry out a strategic case review.
The level of compensation awarded recognises the significant physical and mental impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures, especially given it knew he is disabled and had difficulty maintaining his personal hygiene without the shower. The sum also incorporates a 15% repayment of rent as a result of loss of a critical amenity; that of the installed wet room.

Electrical safety and installed extraction equipment

The resident reported the broken fused switches on 5 March 2024. The landlord repaired these in August 2024, around 4 months later. The records provided do not give an exact date when this was done, or provide any explanation for the delay. The landlord failed to do the repair within 30 calendar days as per policy. This was especially poor given the resident told the landlord on 8 July 2024 that he was concerned the faulty fused switches were a fire risk, and a health and safety risk, as there were exposed wires. The landlord acknowledged its failing in its stage 2 response, apologised and offered compensation.
The landlord’s records indicate the resident raised a repair regarding the filters on the extractor fan on 21 May 2024. However, the landlord does not dispute the resident’s statement that he first raised concerns to the landlord shortly after he moved in, on 5 January 2024. The landlord said as part of its stage 2 response that, while it has no formal records of the request at the time, the member of staff who the resident reported this to had left the company, and it could not determine why there was a delay in its response. The landlord said it suspected there had been “an oversight on the matter and that poor communication had led to this service failure.” It apologised that it had not prioritised and arranged to replace the filters sooner than July 2024. It offered compensation for the resulting distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s failure was especially poor given the resident’s reported concerns regarding his breathing.
Because the award of £500 for distress and inconvenience is not further broken down, to show how much was awarded for the wet room, how much for the fused switches, and how much for the extractor fan filters. Nor is it possible to determine what specific detriments this may or may not have included, or as a result their adequacy. While the landlord acknowledged its failings and made an award of compensation, it failed to make any undertakings to implement organisational learning. We have therefore made a finding of service failure on this element of the complaint, and the landlord is ordered landlord to apologise and pay £150 compensation in recognition of the distress, time, trouble and inconvenience the landlords management of the reported issued engendered.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy, which was in line the Housing Ombudsman Service Complaint Handing Code (the Code), said it would log and acknowledge new complaints within 5 working days, and respond in full within 10 working days of acknowledgement. If it needed more time to respond, it would provide an explanation to the resident and a clear timeframe for when the response would be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. In instances where it required an extension beyond the additional 10 days, it would provide the resident contact details for the Housing Ombudsman Service.
The policy said requests to escalate to stage 2 of the complaints procedure would be logged and acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt, and responded to in full within 20 working days acknowledgement. If it needed more time to respond, it would provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. In instances where it required an extension beyond the additional 10 days, it would provide the resident contact details for the Housing Ombudsman Service.
The landlord logged and acknowledged the resident’s 13 June 2024 complaint in 3 working days. This was appropriate. However, it did not provide a stage 1 response until 14 November 2024, 107 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. This was after this Service had contacted the landlord twice to chase a response. This was very poor complaint handling and contributed to the resident’s perception that the landlord did not care.
On 11 July 2024 the landlord told the resident it would only send a full stage 1 complaint response “once all works were completed”. This was the incorrect approach to take, and not in line with the landlord’s policy (and the Code), which said, “complaint responses will not be delayed due to outstanding actions. Rather, our responses will set out a plan for resolving outstanding issues and fulfilling any commitment e.g. to complete repairs.” The landlord acknowledged this error in its stage 2 response.
There was also an error in how the landlord approached the award of compensation at stage 1, in that it said (bar an “interim payment” of £150), it would calculate its compensation offer to the resident once it had completed all of the relevant works. There is no precedent for this approach within the landlord’s policy or the Code. This was also confusing for the resident, who had been previously advised (on 19 and 25 September 2024) that the landlord intended to offer him in the region of £600 compensation.
The resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 19 November 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge this. The stage 2 response was also late (provided 41 working days after the request to escalate), and only provided following contact by this Service to the landlord.
It was appropriate that the stage 2 response, dated 20 January 2025, acknowledged failings, explained why these had come about, showed empathy, and apologised to the resident. It also showed learning in relation to the complaint handling failures. However, there were a number of failings identified above, including:
1. The incorrect approach and resulting extended delay in providing a stage 1 response.
2. Incorrect approach to calculating compensation at stage 1.
3. Lack of acknowledgement and delayed stage 2 response.
The nature and level of the complaint handling failings in this case would usually amount to a finding of maladministration. The Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance recommends compensation of between £100 and £600 for maladministration which adversely affected the resident, but had no permanent impact. The landlord apologised and awarded the resident £400 compensation for its poor complaint handling at stage 2. This demonstrates that the landlord took its complaint handling failings and the resulting effect on the resident seriously. The landlord has therefore made appropriate and proportionate redress, and the Ombudsman has made a finding of reasonable redress and has made no orders on this part of the complaint.
This finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the landlord’s handling of the complaint, or impact on the resident was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were considerable failings by the landlord, which it has acknowledged, remedied and compensated for in line with the Ombudsman’s approach.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the wet room floor was uneven and water from the shower leaked out of the room.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the reported concerns regarding electrical safety and installed extraction equipment.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior officer of the landlord, at minimum director level, must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures, having due regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. The landlord must directly pay the resident compensation of £4,129.56, broken down as follows:
  1. £2,579.56 for loss of amenity in the wet room, calculated as follows:

15% of the £798 rent paid for January 2024 = £119.70.

15% of the £1,797.96 rent paid between February 2024 and March 2024 (£898.98 per month) = £269.69.

15% of £11,618.40 rent paid between April 2024 to March 2025 (£968.20 per month) = £1,742.72.

15% of the £2,983.02 rent paid between April 2025 and June 2025 (£994.34 per month) = £447.45.

£1,000 for distress and inconvenience as a result of its handling of the wet room.
£150 for distress and inconvenience as a result of its handling of reported concerns regarding electrical safety and installed extraction equipment.

The compensation payment is inclusive of the £500 for distress and inconvenience, and the £1227.76 room loss allowance, already paid to the resident by the landlord following its stage 2 response. This means the landlord must pay the resident an additional £2,401.80.

If it has not already done so, the landlord must develop and instruct a decisive, timed action plan to provide an enduring remedy to the wet room failures surfaced in this case. This plan must also consider mitigations measures, including the potential use of void properties within the housing scheme to provide an interim means to alleviate the impact of the loss of cleansing facilities in the residents own home. This plan must be finalised within 4 weeks of the date of this report and all required actions must be fully completed within 10 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord must carry out a strategic case review to identify the causes of the failures in this case, and identify learning and service improvement points. The review should be undertaken by a manager outside of the service involved in the failings included in this report, and incorporate its own held records as well as taking into account this report. The report must also be shared with the landlords Governance Body. Specific attention should be given to:
1. The level of urgency with which the landlord responded, especially in relation to the wet room, and why the planning and decision-making process was exceptionally slow.
2. Its communication with the developer, and why it was not able to ensure the repairs were appropriately managed, completed in a timely manner and to a satisfactory standard.
3. Why it did not comply with its new homes customer care and defects management policy, including in relation to its poor communication with the resident.
4. Insufficient efforts to mitigate the impact on the resident.
5. Its failure to undertake, demonstrably indicate, or record its assessment, due regard, or consideration for its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010.
6. Whether other residents have been similarly affected and its intentions in respect of any such cases identified.
The landlord must share a written report of the review of the case review with the resident and this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report. Given potential agenda pressures, the report must be shared with its Governance Board within the longer timeframe of 4 months of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The Landlord is recommended to review its responsibilities within the Equality Act 2010 and the application of its findings in this respect alongside adequate mitigation measures for other residents at this housing scheme who may be similarly affected.
It is recommended that relevant staff involved in this case undertake complaint handling learning from our Centre for Learning ( https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/centre-for-learning/key-topics/complaint-handling/ ).