Peabody Trust (202419862)

Background

1. The property is a 3-bed flat in a converted house.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs linked to damp and mould reports.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs linked to damp and mould reports.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord failed to failed to provide adequate oversight or communication for the required repairs.
   2. The landlord failed to start the section 20 consultation process until 18 months after identifying the need for it.
   3. The landlord’s stage 1 response incorrectly said it had not missed repair appointments in January 2024
   4. There were unreasonable delays in the landlord’s complaint responses but it awarded sufficient redress for its complaint handling failings.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. The landlord’s repair policy says that it should carry out non–urgent repairs within 20 working days.
8. Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) requires landlords to consult leaseholders for works exceeding £250 per leaseholder. This involves the landlord making leaseholders aware of the scope of required works and providing estimates for the costs involved in those works.
9. It is not under dispute that the landlord failed to attend two appointments for roof repairs in January 2024.
10. The landlord then attended on 1 February 2024 and identified the requirement for a roof survey. However, it failed to raise a works order for this survey until 18 March 2024, over 6 weeks later. The delay was unreasonable, particularly given the resident’s concerns about damp in the property. 
11. Following an inspection on 5 April 2024, the landlord identified the need for a section 20 consultation due to the scope and cost of the required works. On 12 April 2024, a building surveyor requested that the section 20 process be waived to allow the works to proceed, suggesting they considered the works urgent.
12. Within the April 2024 stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the need for larger scale works but never mentioned the requirement for a section 20 consultation or provided any idea on a timeframe for those works. This is not in keeping with the Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code and left the resident with no idea of the action that it would take to resolve the outstanding repairs.
13. The landlord failed to progress the section 20 process or show any oversight of the required works, despite the resident chasing it in August 2024 and again in October 2024 (when she requested to escalate the complaint). The landlord missed these opportunities to acknowledge the ongoing delays and progress the works.
14. These delays continued beyond March 2025. Despite the landlord acknowledging the significant delays and the lack of communication within its March 2025 stage 2 response, it still took no action to arrange or carry out the repairs. This is a serious failing on the part of the landlord.
15. The landlord did not issue a section 20 consultation notice to the resident until 13 October 2025, shortly after we requested evidence of any notices that it had issued. This is over 18 months after the landlord identified the required works and the need to engage the section 20 process. During that time, the landlord said it had not completed any repairs to mitigate the damage while larger scale works were pending. This was an unreasonable and significant delay, allowing the roofing fault to impact the resident’s household conditions.
16. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord proposed £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Given the significant impact on the resident, the number of failings and the unreasonable delays beyond the end of the complaints process, we do not consider the proposed compensation sufficient.
17. Further, the landlord did not learn lessons from the outcome of the complaint as similar failings continued beyond the end of the complaints process. In line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance, we will order an increased payment of £1,000 (an additional £400) be made to the resident. This reflects the repeated and long-term landlord failings.
18. Ultimately, the landlord failed to provide adequate oversight of roofing works needed to address the resident’s concerns about damp caused by water ingress. Although the specific impact to the inside of the property is unclear from the evidence provided, the resident made the landlord aware of her concerns and potential hazards, such as materials falling from the roof, throughout the complaint period.
19. Given the service failings, the impact on the resident and the unreasonable delays, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs linked to damp and mould reports. The landlord has now progressed to a section 20 notice but we have ordered that it provide information to the resident about when it plans to complete the roofing works.

20. The landlord’s complaint handling policy says that it should provide a response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
21. The landlord failed to log the complaint on 25 January 2024, despite a clear expression of dissatisfaction from the resident. This was not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
22. On 30 January 2024, the landlord reviewed the resident contact from 25 January 2024 and for a second time, failed to recognise it as a complaint. Following further contact form the resident, it re–opened the complaint on 28 February 2024. This meant that the landlord failed to act on the complaint for over 5 weeks after the resident raised it.
23. The landlord then failed to provide the stage 1 response within the timeframe set out in its complaint policy as it took 40 working days to provide a response. This was a significant delay, during which time it provided no acknowledgement or explanation for the delays. Overall, it took 64 working days for the landlord to provide its stage 1 response, significantly outside the timeframe in its complaint policy.
24. Within the stage 1 response, the landlord failed to demonstrate sufficient investigation of the resident’s initial concerns regarding the missed appointments in January 2024. It incorrectly stated that there was no record of the missed appointments. The landlord later acknowledged this error within its stage 2 response but this was over a year after the initial complaint.
25. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation to stage 2, dated 7 October 2024, until after we requested a response in March 2025. It acknowledged our request and provided a stage 2 response within 4 days, despite having received the resident’s escalation request over 5 months prior and there being no clear reason for the delay.
26. The landlord offered £20 compensation for two missed repair appointments in January 2024. This was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy.
27. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord proposed £250 compensation for the complaint handling failings. This was within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend where failings had an adverse impact on a resident. We therefore find that the landlord offered reasonable redress. This would have been a finding of maladministration had the landlord not taken steps to acknowledge and provide redress for its failings. The 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 acknowledged and offered compensation for in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Learning

28. The landlord should have systems and procedures in place to ensure that it is able to provide effective oversight of major works or repairs that require use of a section 20 consultation.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord should have systems and procedures in place to ensure that works orders show no access and missed appointments along with relevant evidence linked to them.