Peabody Trust (202420928)

Background

1. The resident has health vulnerabilities which affect her lungs. She reported ongoing leaks and worsening kitchen condition from 2023. The landlord was aware of these vulnerabilities but has not formally recorded them on its system.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and the associated kitchen repairs.
3. The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of leaks and the associated kitchen repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord acknowledged its failings in resolving the leak and the distress this caused the resident. It has now resolved this and carried out appropriate surveys of the kitchen to inform its decision to repair. Its offer of compensation was reasonable and recognised the significant impact on the resident, in line with our remedies guidance.
6. The landlord acknowledged delays in responding at stage 1 and its failure to address all the complaint issues. It recognised the time and trouble this cost the resident in pursuing her complaint and seeking our involvement. Its offer of compensation was reasonable and recognised the adverse impact its failings had on the resident, in line with our remedies guidance.

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.

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.

What we have not investigated

7. During her complaint, the resident referred to how her living conditions impacted her health and wellbeing. We do not doubt this. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for the courts to deal with, or as a personal injury claim. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and whether the landlord adequately considered her vulnerabilities.
8. It is not our role to determine whether the resident’s kitchen needed renewal. We assess whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a renewal was reasonable based on the evidence available to it, taking into account its policies and good industry practice.

What we have investigated

9. The landlord has indicated its expected lifespan for kitchens is 25 years. The Decent Homes Standard considers a kitchen which is less than 20 years old as ‘reasonably modern’. However, a kitchen will not fail the standard on age alone; it must also be in such poor condition it needs major repair. As such, this investigation considers those timeframes as a broad guideline when evaluating the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for a new kitchen.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours and make safe within 24 hours. It will complete routine repairs within 28 days and major repairs, including kitchen replacements, in 60 days. It may consider carrying out some repairs as a higher priority where there is a vulnerable person in the household.
11. The landlord acknowledged through the complaints process that, despite the resident continuously reporting a leak in her kitchen from November 2023, it failed to resolve this. It took regular responsive action in line with its repairs policy but did not adequately diagnose the issue for several months. It accepted it then failed to organise multi-trade attendance to effectively resolve the leak.
12. The leak was on the cold feed behind the kitchen cupboard so was uncontainable. The landlord noted that the resident and her carers had to continually mop up the water. This caused her significant distress and inconvenience. She also regularly explained to the landlord that she had vulnerabilities, including lung fibrosis. She said that the leak caused damp and mould in the kitchen.
13. During this period, the resident requested a new kitchen due to its age as she said it was over 20 years old. She raised multiple complaints about the leak in the kitchen and the damp and mould this caused behind, and underneath, the kitchen units. She explained that it was affecting her health and said the landlord had missed 2 appointments. She submitted a further complaint in October 2024 about the age of the kitchen and the landlord’s failure to address her replacement request.
14. The landlord raised no specific repair orders or inspections for the damp and mould reported in the kitchen. We understand that, given the area affected (behind units), interim measures would have been difficult to action. The resident has confirmed that when the landlord removed the cupboard it carried out a mould wash before refitting the new units. This was an appropriate step to address the mould growth.
15. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response in December 2024, it unreasonably only addressed the resident’s concerns about the age of the kitchen. It said it would not replace this due to age alone. It said it had surveyed the kitchen in the previous year, and it did not require replacement. This response was inappropriate as it failed to consider the impact a 13 month uncontainable leak likely had on the condition of the kitchen. It did not reference that a contractor had recommended a surveying referral at the beginning of 2024, noting the kitchen was beyond repair. It also unreasonably failed to action any further repairs at that time to resolve the leak.
16. The resident continued to chase a resolution to the leak and a replacement kitchen. She regularly raised concerns about health and vulnerabilities which the landlord acknowledged but failed to appropriately record on its systems. This was unreasonable. This potentially affected its ability to action repairs in line with its policy and attend sooner in cases of vulnerability but it mitigated this with evidence that the personal knowledge of staff allowed it to appropriately consider the resident’s vulnerabilities. There were references to the resident’s health throughout the repairs and complaint history. It also considered a potential need to offer a temporary move internally due to her vulnerabilities, showing it appropriately considered the resident’s circumstances.
17. In February 2025 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It unreasonably said the resident had raised no specific complaints about damp and mould, despite providing evidence to us that she had provided 2 complaints about damp and mould. This shows poor utilisation of its record keeping. Despite this failing, it managed to address the substantive issues raised by the resident. It confirmed it had been aware it needed multi-trade attendance since July 2024. It accepted contractors advised this again twice in August 2024, but it failed to take sufficient action.
18. The landlord appropriately recognised that the resident had waited for 8 months for a surveyor to assess the kitchen. This survey had confirmed that it would repair the kitchen and not replace it. It said it would arrange a new surveyor appointment, and they would contact her in 10 days. This was a reasonable response in its approach to assessing the condition of the kitchen in line with its policies. It appropriately considered the effect the leak could have had on the kitchen condition, and the contractor’s reports from October and November 2024. These said that the kitchen was beyond repair and that it required a further surveyor’s assessment.
19. The landlord awarded £625 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused in the repairs handling and lack of support. This was proportionate for the failings up to February 2025 and within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend where there was a significant impact on a resident. The landlord offered compensation of £20 for the 2 missed appointments that the resident reported. This was also a reasonable offer and in line with its compensation policy that allows for £10 per missed appointment where there has been service failure.
20. The landlord also conducted a compensation review in August 2025, following the completion of repairs, increasing its offer to £775. This appropriately recognised the impact of the failings after February 2025. It was resolution focussed for the landlord to review the compensation level following the completion of the works.
21. Overall, the total amount offered was at the higher end of the landlord’s compensation policy for service failures with a long duration and high impact. The landlord also completed the kitchen survey in March 2025, it confirmed the outcome to the resident in June 2025 and the work required in July 2025. Although it carried out costly and disruptive major repairs to the kitchen rather than replacing it, the landlord met its obligations to maintain the property.
22. The landlord recognised the impact its failings had on the resident’s circumstances. Its total offer of £775 was in line with our remedies guidance to appropriately reflect the long‑running failings, the significant impact on the resident, and missed opportunities to put things right. On this basis, we make a finding of reasonable redress, though we have made recommendations above.

23. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s policy is in line with this.
24. The resident raised 2 complaints in August 2024, and a further complaint in October 2024. She contacted us for support in getting responses to her complaints. The landlord raised service recovery cases rather than complaints. It failed to appropriately recognise the clear expression of dissatisfaction in the submitted complaint forms. Ultimately, the service recovery cases were confusing for the resident and acted as a barrier to the complaints process.
25. The landlord only responded at both stages with our intervention. Its stage 1 response was sent 4 months after the initial complaint. It failed to appropriately investigate the full extent of the complaints. It responded only to the complaint about a new kitchen request. It did not consider the leaks and damp and mould the resident had raised in her previous complaints (which related to the kitchen replacement). It appropriately recognised complaint handling failings and offered £100 compensation for its delay.
26. The landlord’s stage 2 response was 4 days overdue and inappropriately only acknowledged our escalation request and not the resident’s. This response addressed the substantive issues appropriately. It offered an additional £100 for complaint handling failures. It recognised the impact its failure to address the complaint sooner had on its handling of the repairs.
27. Overall, the landlord recognised its failings to respond to the complaints in relevant timeframes and the time and trouble this caused the resident. Its total compensation offer of £200 was appropriately in line with its compensation policy for an extensive complaint handling failure. This was also in line with our remedies guidance for failings with an adverse effect to the resident but no permanent impact. On this basis, we find there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord.

Learning

Asset Management and Predictive Maintenance

28. The landlord carried out major repairs to a kitchen despite indications it may have been approaching replacement within the planned cycle. The Housing Ombudsman’s Repairing Trust Spotlight Report highlights that this is a common problem across the sector. Many landlords rely on short‑term, reactive repairs instead of using good asset data to decide when replacing something would give better value, cause less disruption, and improve the resident’s experience. The landlord’s asset management strategy shows progress towards this approach. It should make sure this message is clear across all teams so front‑line staff can put it into practice.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord had major gaps in how it recorded, shared, and escalated information. It logged key repairs but did not combine these into a full picture of the resident’s situation. A referral to the surveyor went untracked and unacted upon for around 8 months, leading to avoidable deterioration and distress. The landlord failed to update the resident’s contact information with her vulnerabilities, despite repeated references to them. This lack of joined‑up information meant staff made decisions without considering the cumulative impact of months of leaks, mould, and damage. Effective knowledge and information management requires clear referral tracking, consistent data recording, and systems that flag repeat issues.

Communication

30. The landlord’s communication during the complaint process was inconsistent and unclear. Slow responses forced the resident to chase for updates, causing frustration and reducing trust. The landlord also gave mixed messages about the kitchen’s condition and whether it needed replacing, which added to the confusion. It did not clearly explain key decisions, including why replacement was declined, despite the resident’s vulnerability and ongoing health issues. Effective communication requires timely updates, clear reasons for decisions, and consistent messages across all teams. Earlier and more open communication would have helped manage expectations, offered reassurance, and reduced the need for the complaint to escalate.