Peabody Trust (202417372)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417372

Peabody Trust

29 May 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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of a leak.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about security following a bicycle theft.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder, they have held the lease since December 2023. The landlord is a housing association.
The property is a one-bedroom flat on the top floor of a block of flats. The landlord is not the freeholder and the wider block is managed by a managing agent. The managing agent is appointed by a residents association.
In January 2024 the resident noticed water stains on walls in the property which they suspected were a result of leaks. On 4 April 2024 the resident told the landlord they had been chasing the management agent for a month about the possible leaks with no success. The landlord contacted the management agent on the resident’s behalf to chase this repair.
In February 2024 the resident’s bicycle was stolen from a secured storage area. The resident informed the landlord of the theft on 23 April 2024. They asked the landlord to consider installing CCTV which covered the bicycle store. The resident also raised concerns about non-residents who were accessing secured communal areas of the building and loitering until the early hours of the morning.
In their complaint dated 5 June 2024 the resident said:
1. They had contacted the landlord on 21 February 2024 about a leak, and it had committed to responding to the resident within 10 days but failed to do so.
2. When the resident chased a response the landlord said it had no record of the 21 February 2024 call.
3. A roofer had attended 2 weeks prior and said someone would need to clear the debris from the roof before it could be assessed if there were any leaks.
4. They wanted the landlord to actively communicate with them about the leak and the next steps.
5. Their bicycle had been stolen from a secured area of the property which was not covered by CCTV. They wanted the landlord to consider if CCTV could be installed in this area.
6. People were still hanging out at the rear of the property and talking loudly in the early hours.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 23 July 2024 which said:
1. It was not responsible for the leaks. It said the responsibility for the leak was with the building’s managing agent.
2. The management agent was instructed by the residents association, so the landlord recommended that the resident contact the director of the residents association for assistance.
3. It offered the resident £25 in compensation for its complaints handling delays.
The resident escalated their complaint on 10 December 2024 as they were not satisfied with the content of the stage one response.
The landlord provided its stage 2 reply on 6 February 2025 which said:
1. It apologised for the time it had taken to respond to the resident’s complaint.
2. It acknowledged that it had not provided the resident with clear guidance in its stage one response, and it apologised for this.
3. It had been in contact with the property’s current and previous management agents to obtain further information about the repair, but neither company were able to provide it with a definitive answer.
4. The landlord committed to keeping the complaint open until it had obtained sufficient details from the management agent.
5. The resident’s concerns about the bicycle theft fell under its responsibility (rather than the management agent). It said residents who leave items in communal areas do so at their own risk.
6. It said as installation of CCTV is not a legal requirement, it would only install CCTV if there was a need to do so and after it had engaged in a consultation with leaseholders. The leaseholders would be responsible for the associated costs.
7. The landlord said it had learned from the resident’s complaint. It said it had identified that it should be more proactive in supporting leaseholders and in engaging with management agents.
8. It offered the resident compensation of £200 for the distress and inconvenience experienced, and £100 for its complaint handling failures.
The resident told this Service they were not satisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation. They said they were expecting a concrete response considering the leak had been ongoing for a year.
The landlord has told this Service that the roof repairs are currently ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

When assessing the landlord’s response to the complaint the Ombudsman will consider events which occurred after the landlord’s internal complaints procedure concluded. Currently the roof repairs linked to the complaint are ongoing, and the landlord has kept the resident’s complaint open to monitor its progress. As such, it is reasonable for the Ombudsman to consider the landlord’s actions after its stage 2 response in this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the reported leak

The landlord’s estate management policy says it is committed to maintaining its neighbourhoods to a high standard, and to ensure its residents live in safe and clean environments. When the landlord jointly manages a site, it will work with other relevant organisations to ensure it meets these objectives.
When working alongside other organisations the landlord will seek to obtain agreements which set out the responsibilities of each party.
The landlord’s repairs policy outlines its response times for repairs. The landlord designates repairs which require scaffolding or damp issues as programmed repairs. It aims to complete programmed repairs within 60 days.
The resident’s lease specifies that the leaseholder is responsible for the maintenance of their property and any damage they cause to communal areas. The lease says that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the common areas of the building.
The resident said they first contacted the landlord about the suspected leak on 21 February 2024. The resident said the landlord did not follow up on the issue after this call. The landlord has not located any evidence relating to this call. On 4 April 2024 the resident emailed the landlord about the leak. On 22 April 2024 the landlord assigned the email to the resident’s neighbourhood manager. On 10 May 2024 the neighbourhood manager contacted the management agent to obtain further information about the leak and any associated repairs. This was an appropriate course of action; however the landlord could have conducted this in a timelier manner as it took a month before it took any action in response to the resident’s report.
The management agent responded to the landlord on 20 July 2024. The management agent said the work required for the roof was complex, and the quote it had received for the repair was large. Because of this the management agent was looking into obtaining additional quotes. The management agent also said the management of the building would soon be transferring to a new agent. Because of this it did not feel comfortable spending large amounts of money prior to the transfer.
The landlord did not update the resident about the content of this email, this was inappropriate. After receiving this email, the landlord should have also recorded the information about the transfer and obtained details of the new management agent for its records. It was inappropriate that it did not do this.
On 23 July 2024 the landlord said in its stage one response that it could not help the resident with the leak as the building had a management agent. It advised the resident to speak with the building’s residents association. This advice was incorrect and unhelpful.
The Ombudsman expects a landlord to act on behalf of its residents, and to support residents through issues involving management agents. After receiving the resident’s complaint, the landlord should have actively supported the resident. Considering the content of the lease the landlord should have been proactive in arranging for the repair as it related to a communal area. Additionally, it should have provided the resident with the information it had recently obtained from the management agent on 20 July 2024. The content of the stage one response was inappropriate, and the lack of support offered would have caused the resident distress.
In its stage two response the landlord apologised for the content of its stage one response. It said it should have taken additional steps to support the resident, and to rectify this it would keep the resident’s complaint open until the management agent had completed the required repairs. This was appropriate.
The landlord also acknowledged that it had not adequately communicated with both the resident and the management agent. It offered the resident £200 compensation in recognition of the distress experienced from its lack of communication. The landlord said it had learnt from the resident’s complaint, and it needed to improve the support it gave leaseholders when matters involve a managing agent. This was appropriate.
The resident raised concerns about damp and mould linked to the water ingress from the leak on 6 February 2025. This was after the landlord’s internal complaints procedure had concluded. As such, it was reasonable that the landlord did not address the mould concerns in its complaint responses, as it was unaware of the issues at the time.
The landlord inspected the mould on 23 April 2025 and identified growing mould. The inspection occurred 77 days after the resident reported the mould to the landlord. This was outside of its repairs timescales, which was unreasonable.
The landlord acknowledged at stage 2 that it had failed to adequately communicate with the management agent about the leak. This would have contributed to delays in the leak being rectified, which in turn could have aided the mould growth. This would have been distressing for the resident as they were not responsible for repairing the leak, but the associated delays could have led to damage to their property which they could not prevent.
The landlord has told this Service the repairs to the roof are ongoing. The resident has said the landlord has not yet updated them about the progress of the repair. As the landlord has accepted that previously it had failed to adequately communicate with the resident, it should now be making a concerted effort to appropriately communicate with the resident about the repair. To address this the Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to meet with the resident in person and to agree a communication plan.
The compensation offered by the landlord did not adequately reflect the failings outlined in this report, and the delays associated with such failings. Considering the content of the resident’s lease, and the role of the landlord it should have taken concrete steps to arrange for the repair to occur. It should have also actively supported the resident when the leak caused damp and mould damage in their property.
To address the resident’s concerns the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £400. Orders have also been made to inspect the damp and mould damage, for the landlord to meet with the resident and for the landlord to organise a single point of contact in the management company.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about security following a bicycle theft

The landlord’s surveillance policy says it will only consider installing CCTV in areas where there are identified concerns relating to crime, ASB and vandalism. The landlord will only install CCTV when less cost effective and intrusive solutions have been explored.
If the landlord decides it should install CCTV it will consult with residents. When leaseholders, shared owners or freeholders will be affected, the landlord is required to enter formal consultation processes under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
On 23 April 2024 the resident told the landlord their bicycle had been stolen from a secured communal storage area. The resident said as there were no CCTV cameras covering the area they could not provide any evidence to the police about the theft. The resident asked if the landlord could consider installing CCTV in this area. They also asked if they could make a claim for the bicycle via the buildings insurance.
The landlord responded to this enquiry on 12 June 2024, this was an unreasonable response time. The landlord told the resident it was unable to install CCTV without a recommendation from the police to do so. This advice was not in-line with the landlord’s surveillance policy which says the landlord will consider installing CCTV if there are identified concerns relating to crime, ASB and vandalism. There is no requirement for police involvement, as such the advice given to the resident was inaccurate and unreasonable.
Additionally, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s enquiry about making a claim against the building’s insurance. This was inappropriate and would have made the resident feel unheard.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said residents who store items in the bicycle shed do so at their own risk. The landlord said installing CCTV is not a legal requirement, and the costs would need to be covered by leaseholders. The landlord said if the resident felt CCTV was needed in the building it could facilitate a consultation with the leaseholders.
If the landlord felt installing CCTV was not appropriate it could have considered other actions to address the resident’s security concerns. It could have reviewed the lock on the bicycle store, changed any access codes or put up signage or notices warning residents about thefts. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not consider this or discuss options with the managing agent.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration occurred after considering:
1. The landlord did not provide a response to the resident’s enquiry around buildings insurance.
2. The landlord gave the resident inaccurate information about its CCTV policy.
3. The landlord did not consider putting additional security measures in place following the theft.
The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay £200 in compensation. This is to reflect the distress the resident experienced from the landlord’s lack of action. The landlord is also ordered to meet with the resident in person to discuss the resident’s security concerns.

The landlord’s handling of reported ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy says when a resident reports ASB it will respond within 2 days. The landlord will also assess if the resident is vulnerable, and if so it will consider how it can support the resident.
On 23 April 2024 when the resident reported their bicycle had been stolen, they also reported ASB concerns. The resident said a group of non-residents had been accessing the building via a secured communal area. The resident said this group was hanging out by the bicycle store until the early hours of the morning. The resident said this was disruptive as the group would talk loudly at night.
The landlord did not log or address the resident’s ASB concerns, it only responded to the resident’s concerns about CCTV. This was not in-line with the landlord’s ASB policy which was a failing.
As the resident had said the group were non-residents and they were accessing a secured area, the landlord should have identified this as a security concern. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take such concerns seriously, and to also consider putting additional security measures in place. The landlord did not act in this manner which was unreasonable.
On 18 October 2024 the resident told the landlord the ASB was still occurring. The resident asked the landlord to consider if the code for the access gate could be changed to prevent non-residents from accessing the communal areas. This was a reasonable request, and it could have benefitted all residents. The landlord said it would pass on the resident’s concerns to the relevant neighbourhood manager. The neighbourhood manager did not address or respond to the resident’s concerns, this was inappropriate.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration occurred after considering:
1. The landlord did not consider any actions to address the resident’s concerns.
2. The landlord did not follow its ASB policy.
3. The landlord did not consider the resident’s request to change access codes.
The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay £300 in compensation to reflect the distress experienced by the landlord’s lack of action in relation to the reported ASB.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines the timescales in which it will respond to a complaint. The landlord commits to acknowledging complaints within 5 working days, and to provide its stage one response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If the resident wishes for their complaint to be escalated to a stage 2 complaint, the landlord will acknowledge this request within 5 working days and provide its response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The landlord defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction relating to the actions of the landlord. When a resident expresses dissatisfaction to the landlord outside of making a formal complaint, the landlord will ask a resident if they wish to make a complaint.
On 4 April 2024 the resident contacted the landlord about the suspected leak, they also asked the landlord if they could make a complaint. Considering the resident’s wishes the landlord should have logged this matter as a complaint. On this occasion the landlord failed to log a complaint or advise the resident how they could make a complaint. This was unreasonable.
The resident complained to the landlord on 5 June 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint, this was inappropriate. The landlord provided its stage one response 35 working days later on 12 July 2024. The landlord offered the resident £25 compensation for this delay.
The resident escalated their complaint on 10 December 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request 34 working days later on 29 January 2025, this was outside of the landlord’s complaints timescales. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 7 working days later on 6 February 2025. This was an appropriate response time considering the delays associated with the escalation acknowledgement.
At stage 2 the landlord offered the resident an additional £100 in compensation for its complaint handling delays and for the lack of support offered by the landlord at stage one. This brought the total compensation offered for its complaints handling to £125.
The Ombudsman considers the apology and £125 compensation to be appropriate for the failings identified. As such the Ombudsman considers the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about security following a bicycle theft.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress for its complaints handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £900 to the resident, the £200 previously offered van be deducted from this amount if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £400 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of the leak.
2. £200 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of security concerns.
3. £300 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of reported ASB.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is to arrange for a suitable professional to conduct a damp and mould inspection including inside the resident’s flat. If any recommendations are made which would provide a temporary fix while the repairs are ongoing the landlord is to adopt such recommendations.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is to meet with the resident to discuss the roof repairs, how it plans to address the damp and mould issues and how it will communicate with the resident and the management agent about the repairs going forward.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is to contact the management agent and arrange for a point of contact within the company.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is to meet with the resident in person to discuss their security concerns.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with this order within 4 weeks of the determination date.

Recommendations

The finding of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation previously offered of £125 is paid to the resident if the landlord has not yet paid this amount.
The landlord should consider if any additional security measures would be appropriate for the building.