Peabody Trust (202419883)

Background

1. The resident has reported damp and mould at the property to the landlord since at least 2023. In September 2023 a contractor noted that external works were required to resolve matters. The resident has informed the landlord of her vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found service failure in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the complaint.
6. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord identified failings in the way it handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould, including delays to external and internal works in the resident’s property and in its communication. It looked to put this right in its complaint responses. However, it then did not complete these works within its timescales.
8. The landlord also identified failings in the way it responded to the resident’s complaint. It apologised and took steps to put things right.

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.

9. Generally, we investigate issues and events up to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response. This is because events that occurred after the date of the final response will not have been addressed via the landlord’s complaint process. However, in this case it is appropriate for us to consider events past this date, as these events are directly relevant to the issues raised in the complaint and actions the landlord committed to in its complaint responses.
10. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 24 September 2023. They recommended that external works needed to be completed to the building where the resident lived. This external work (and follow-on internal works) were completed on 20 November 2024. This was nearly 14 months from when the work was recommended. The landlord’s repairs policy says specialist works should be completed within 60 calendar days. The landlord did not act appropriately because it failed to follow its policy here.
11. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it aims to ensure that residents live in a safe and healthy home. The policy says the landlord will take into account the effect that damp and mould can have on a resident and that it will prioritise work to tackle this. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained the contractor’s assessment that there was not much point carrying out a mould wash due to the mould constantly coming back. We believe it reasonable to say that if the landlord agreed with this assessment, it should have considered prioritising the external work. There is no evidence it did this. This would have meant the follow-on internal works would also have been completed much sooner.
12. The landlord did carry out some interim internal works in April 2024, including mould washes of the affected areas. However, that was some 6 months after the landlord had identified the damp and works required to resolve it. The landlord did not act appropriately here. We consider this does not show it prioritising work related to damp and mould or ensuring the resident was living in a safe and healthy home.
13. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says the landlord will make sure residents receive regular and timely updates. Throughout the period of the complaint, the evidence shows the resident chasing the landlord for an update. The landlord did not make sure the resident received regular and timely updates about how it intended to deal with the damp and mould. The evidence shows the resident contacting the landlord’s frontline staff for an update. The enquiry would be referred internally but there is no evidence the resident was then updated. These actions are not in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy and increased the frustration felt by the resident.
14. The landlord did identify and acknowledge its failings in its complaint responses. It looked to put things right with the resident and awarded her £600 compensation. If the landlord had completed the repairs within its own timeframes, from the date of the stage 2 response, then we would have found reasonable redress for this matter. However, from its stage 2 response the landlord then took 114 calendar days to complete the external and follow-on internal repairs. This is almost double the 60 days that is set out in its policy and so is a failure to follow the policy. Consequently, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of this matter.
15. The resident had three children, the youngest was 8 years old at the time of the complaint. The resident also detailed the distress and inconvenience being caused to her and the impact the situation was having on her mental health. Considering this, and the delay in the repair from the stage 2, it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay an additional £150 compensation to the resident. The landlord should also apologise for the extra delay in completing the repair.
16. The resident has informed us that she would like a damp-free home and that she does not believe the works related to this issue have been completed. In order to resolve this matter and considering that attempts to resolve it have failed, we have ordered the landlord to engage a specialist damp contractor to inspect the property and make recommendations to resolve the damp and mould issues.
17. The resident has mentioned to us and the landlord that some of her possessions have been damaged due to this issue. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to provide details of its liability insurer to the resident so she can make a claim, should she wish to do so. The insurer can decide on whether the landlord had acted negligently and, if appropriate, the amount that should be paid to the resident. The liability insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s decision or the claims process, aside from passing on the details of how to claim to the resident.

18. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. Its complaints policy was updated during the complaint. The old policy had no requirement to acknowledge a complaint, but the new policy aimed to acknowledge a stage 2 escalation within 5 working days. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation on 21 May 2024. This was 20 working days from when the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord did not follow its policy here.
19. The landlord’s complaints policy says a resident should receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in 21 working days. It responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint in 48 working days. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy on either occasion.
20. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings in its stage 2 response. It failed to follow its own policy but it identified its own failings and took steps to put things right. It offered the resident £400 compensation. Considering our remedies guidance, we consider this to be an appropriate level of compensation for the failings identified.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s records were detailed and showed good practice. Generally, they captured the full repair journey, including notes explaining why works were cancelled or delayed. This level of detail supports transparency and is a positive from the landlord.

Communication

22. We have noted in the above and the landlord has acknowledged that the level of communication was not appropriate. The landlord should ensure it engages with resident’s and has robust internal policies and procedures in place for dealing with enquiries and requests for updates. It could consult our Spotlight report on Repairs and Maintenance on this.