Peabody Trust (202418731)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418731

Peabody Trust

30 April 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. Roof leaks, consequent damp and mould, and the handling of remedial repairs.
2. A request for compensation for damage to personal property and lost rental revenue.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 1 March 2008. The property is a one bedroom flat. The leaseholder does not reside in the property, the property is rented out.
The leaseholder stated a repair to the roof had been ongoing since October 2022. On 28 November 2023 she complained to the landlord about ongoing issues with the roof leaking which had caused damp and mould. She stated it also resulted in mushrooms growing in the property.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 20 December 2023. It understood the leaseholder’s complaint to be about a roof leak which caused damage to property and loss of rental income. It noted the leaseholder was seeking compensation for loss of revenue and damages. Its response included the following points:
1. It explained a job was raised on 23 October 2023 but it could not be carried out due to a variation order for the job not being approved. This had since been approved and a repair would commence. It stated it was waiting for scaffolding to be erected.
2. It acknowledged delays, disruption and loss caused to the leaseholder.
3. It advised damage could be claimed on the leaseholder’s insurance. However if the leaseholder did not have insurance, she could submit a liability claim to its insurance team.
4. In recognition of the inconvenience and stress, the landlord offered £550 compensation but stated this offer would only be valid for 3 months.
The leaseholder disagreed with the landlord’s response. She stated:
1. Her repair request had been ongoing since October 2022.
2. The property was uninhabitable.
3. She would like to claim loss of earnings since October 2022.
4. No attempt to repair had been made by the landlord until her email in December 2023.
5. The scaffolding company turned up unannounced.
6. An appointment for 13 December was a “no show”.
The landlord wrote to the leaseholder regarding its compensation offer. It had reviewed its offer and wanted to increase the compensation to £650. However this offer was only valid for 3 months. It confirmed it would not compensate the leaseholder for loss of rental income and stated she could put in a claim with her own insurers. Or if she did not have her own insurance but felt the landlord was liable, she could make a claim to its insurers.
The leaseholder was unhappy with the landlord’s response and her complaint was escalated to stage two of the complaints procedure.
The landlord issued a stage two response on 14 February 2024. This said:
1. In response to the leaseholder stating the repair request had been ongoing since October 2022 and early 2023, it could not see evidence of a complaint being logged prior to this one. Its repair history showed a repair was raised on 13 December 2022 and its contractor attended during January 2023.
2. It explained the repair to the gutter was closed due to a change in contractors and apologised for not informing the leaseholder.
3. It apologised for the outstanding repairs and explained the next steps would be to have the roof repair completed.
4. It explained it would not compensate for loss of rental income. This was in accordance with its policies.
5. It apologised its contractors did not follow the correct procedure by contacting the leaseholder before visiting the property.
6. In response to the leaseholder stating its contractors did not attend on 13 December 2023, it explained no appointment had been booked for that date. Appointments were booked for 1, 8, and 11 November 2023 and 3 January 2024.
7. It stated it did not agree with the level of compensation offered at in stage one which had failed to provide a breakdown of how it arrived at the figure. In recognition of its failures, the landlord offered £250 for stress and inconvenience and £250 for poor complaint handling.
8. The landlord explained it had reviewed the variation for the required works and this had now been approved. However due to the cost of works, it required a section 20 consultation.
Throughout February 2024 to June 2024, multiple repairs were raised concerning the roof, gutter, damp and mould. An inspection for works to be carried out was completed during May 2024.
On 27 June 2024 a re-inspection of damp proofing works was completed. The operative found damp was affecting some of the internal walls. The damp was present throughout most of the lower ground floor due to untreated damp walls, leaking gutters, downpipes, and plants growing out of the walls. It also stated plumbing leaks looked present at the time of inspection. The operative stated these leaks had been ongoing for some time, which resulted in decay to the skirting boards and plaster fungus which was present. It was recommended that a plumber and gutter contractor investigate and carry out relevant repairs. After this it would then be able to quote for repairs to plaster and damp proofing.
During July and August 2024 the leaseholder expressed frustration to the landlord that several inspections had been carried out but the repairs to the roof were outstanding.
During this period there was internal communication between the landlord and its contractor about completing the section 20 consultation. This needed to be completed in order to have works carried out, however it required 2 quotes.
On 29 August 2024 the landlord sent the leaseholder a section 20 Notice of intention to carry out works. Subsequently on 18 September 2024 a technical inspection was carried out.
During December 2024 the leaseholder got in touch with our service as the repairs were still outstanding. She stated the landlord had refused to repair the property and she had not been provided with a timeline for when these works would be carried out. She further stated she had suffered loss due to her property being uninhabitable.
The repairs remained outstanding in January 2025 and the landlord reassigned the leaseholder’s case to its repairs monitoring team to follow up.
We spoke with the leaseholder on 28 April 2025. She confirmed that she had arranged to have the works completed herself and said that the landlord had not completed any works. The landlord had referred her to its insurers and she is currently going through the process of making a liability claim.

Assessment and findings

According to the landlord’s responsive repair policy, roof works with scaffolding would be considered a major repair. This is because the work would require additional time due to manufacture, complexity and require either a specialist contractor or a technical lead. For these types of repairs it aims to complete works within 60 days. The 60 day period could be affected if the landlord needs to do a section 20 consultation.
In this instance the work has taken substantially longer than expected. Whilst we understand timeframes can change due to complexity, we are not satisfied the landlord has dealt with the situation appropriately in terms of proactively ensuring that works are progressed and the resident kept updated.
We understand the leaseholder has stated her repair request has been ongoing since October 2022. Generally, as the resident is a leaseholder, the landlord would be responsible for external repairs to the structure and exterior of the building. This is stated in section 4.2 of the landlord’s responsive repairs policy and the lease agreement. Therefore, when reports were made about the roof and gutter, the landlord was obligated to investigate and repair if required.
We have reviewed the landlord’s repairs history and can see that in December 2022 the leaseholder had made a report concerning a leak from the gutter. The front and back gutters were blocked and not flush to the wall which was causing damp. It appears the landlord raised this to be attended to within 30 days. The information we have reviewed does not state a date of completion to the works required. In the stage two response the landlord said this was attended to at the time, however we have not seen evidence to confirm this.
The repair records show a gap between December 2022 and October 2023. It also shows similar issues were raised by the leaseholder on the following dates:
1. 23 October 2023 – A roof leak which affected the rear wall.
2. 9 November 2023 – A leak from a gutter to the back of the property which was penetrating the walls causing damp. The landlord asked for this to be investigated.
3. 26 January 2024 – The leaseholder raised concerns about damp and mould.
4. 19 February 2024 – The leaseholder raised concerns again about damp and mould.
5. 3 April 2024 – Damp or mould repair required. Tenant reports hole in back end roof of property after hiring someone private to take a look. Caused by roof.
6. 19 April 2024 – Roof leaking. Roof rear needs to be looked at as tenant advises this was not replaced during repair.
7. 20 May 2024 – Follow on work plasterer to fix all internals in upstairs rear bedroom around window and replace the bowed ceiling, pointing. Replace behind downpipe.
The landlord confirmed in its formal response that appointments were made on 1,8,11 November 2023 and 3 January 2024. There is no evidence that the resident disputed these dates. Therefore it appears the landlord had arranged for its operative to attend to the reports of October 2023 and November 2024. However it is not clear what works were actually carried out.
Despite this, the evidence shows that the leaseholder continued to experience issues with the roof and had reported this to the landlord.
We have reviewed the responsive repairs specification which shows that on 13 May 2024 an inspection for work to be carried out was done. This specified the works which were required. There is no evidence to show any follow up work was completed at the time.
The evidence shows a damp specialist survey was completed on 27 June 2024. It confirmed severe damp in the property caused by leaking gutters, downpipes, plants growing out of the walls and plumbing leaks. It recommended a local plumbing contractor and guttering contractor to investigate and carry out repairs.
Throughout the year the leaseholder had chased the landlord about repairs to the property’s roof many times. However there was a delay in getting the works done.
Section 20 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires housing providers such as local authorities and housing associations to consult with their residents before carrying out certain types of work.
The evidence shows that despite the landlord stating it would be completing a section 20 consultation process in February 2024, there were delays, resulting in this not being completed until August 2024 where it then notified the resident. We would have expected the landlord to start the process as soon as it could and to actively progress matters. In this instance it is clear when looking through the records, that there was confusion on the landlord’s part concerning the process. This caused further delays.
We understand a technical inspection was carried out on 18 September 2024. However we have not seen what the outcome of this inspection was. We also see that in January 2025 works still remained outstanding.
Overall we find the landlord’s failure to repair the roof in good time has significantly impacted the resident. As a result of the ongoing repairs needed she was unable to let out her property. She had to chase the landlord multiple times causing further inconvenience. Whilst we recognise the landlord has made attempts to resolve the matter by completing several inspections, it has not done enough to progress the work needed in a timely way, including ensuring that prompt steps were taken to carry out the required consultation. There is no evidence that it considered whether any temporary repairs could alleviate the impact on the resident’s flat in the meantime. We find unnecessary delays have been caused and the length of time taken to resolve this issue is unreasonable.
We see the landlord had previously offered the leaseholder £650 in its stage one response. This was then reduced to £500 in its stage two response. This was because it did not find the figure to accurately reflect what it should have offered. Whilst it is not generally appropriate for a landlord to decrease its offer of compensation, we understand it explained its position to the resident, which was reasonable.
In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord’s offer of £500 compensation at the end of its internal complaints procedure was reasonable. However, it then failed to ensure that matters were put right following its final response. This service has not seen that it has reviewed its compensation offer since and the issue was still not resolved a year after the stage two response. Therefore, in recognition of the ongoing issue remaining for a considerable extended period following the final response and the landlord failing to do enough to resolve the situation, this service has made a finding of maladministration. We have therefore made an order for further compensation to reflect the impact caused on the leaseholder.

Request for compensation for damage to personal property and lost rental revenue.

The leaseholder stated that she was seeking compensation for loss of rental income. However the landlord stated that it would not compensate the leaseholder. This is in accordance with its policy which states that if a leaseholder lets out their property, it will not compensate for loss of rental income. It further stated the leaseholder could contact her insurers to make a claim.
We have reviewed the landlord’s compensation and remedies policy. We confirm section 4.33 of the policy states the above. We are satisfied the landlord appropriately considered the resident’s concerns and made her aware of its position in line with its policies. This is because it is for a leaseholder to make appropriate arrangements regarding insurance if they rent their home out.
Whilst we understand the leaseholder’s frustration and the impact caused as a result of the roof issues, our role is to consider if there has been a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s requests for reimbursement. Its advice that she should claim via her own insurers for loss of rent or make a claim to its insurers was appropriate. Nonetheless, consideration throughout this investigation has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
In response to the leaseholder’s request for compensation for damage to her property and belongings, the landlord stated it advised all its residents to take out contents insurance. However in the absence of this residents can contact the landlord’s insurers and submit a public liability claim. It further explained this would be dealt with separately to the complaints procedure.
We have reviewed the landlord’s policy and can see the above advice is stated in section 4 of its compensation and remedies policy. We find the landlord appropriately informed the leaseholder of its position and correctly directed her to the insurers. This was reasonable because the assessment and handling of any claim would fall within a separate processand should be addressed by the appropriate department with the relevant expertise.Overall we are satisfied the advice given was in accordance withits policy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to roof leaks, consequent damp and mould, and the handling of remedial repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to a request for compensation for damage to personal property and lost rental revenue.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

The landlord should apologise to the leaseholder. In addition pay the leaseholder £1000. This amount includes the compensation of £500 already offered in its stage two response. The amount should be paid directly to the leaseholder within 4 weeks from the date of this determination. The landlord should provide us with evidence to show it has complied with orders.