We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Peabody Trust (202421550)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421550

Peabody Trust

5 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s request for new windows.
    2. The resident’s reports of condensation, damp, and mould.
    3. The resident’s request for a new kitchen and bathroom.
    4. The resident’s reports regarding the standard of work to the garden wall and pathway.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom basement/ground floor maisonette. The tenancy began in September 1994. The landlord is aware that the resident has physical health conditions.
  2. On 10 February 2022 there was a leak from the boiler, causing water damage to resident’s bedroom walls. On 10 May 2022 the landlord repaired the plasterwork, carried out a mould treatment and redecorated.
  3. On 27 September 2022 the landlord’s raised a repair for broken and damaged window frames. After an inspection on 31 October 2022 it was noted that 6 windows needed to be painted, and the kitchen window replaced as it was “completely rotten.”
  4. The windows were inspected by 2 different specialist window contractors on 20 December 2022 and on or around 10 January 2023. Both provided quotes to replace the windows. The first said it was not cost or time effective to repair the windows.
  5. On 10 February 2023 the resident complained that the window frames were rotten and warped, the window contractor said they needed to be replaced, but the landlord rejected the quotation. She said that it was expensive to heat the house, the cold impacted her health, and there was condensation, damp and mould on all the windows.
  6. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 7 March 2023. It said the quote from the windows contractor had been referred to its Specialist Works and Surveying departments. It had cancelled an appointment scheduled for 8 March 2023 as no further repairs were required.
  7. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 27 July 2023.
  8. A surveyor inspected the windows on 20 October 2023.
  9. The resident asked again to escalate her complaint on 16 November 2023.
  10. Between 3 January 2024 and 9 January 2024 the landlord repaired 2 bay windows at the front of the flat.
  11. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 19 February 2024. It apologised that it had not progressed works to the windows in a timely manner, and had not kept the resident informed. It said it would ensure the windows were renewed, or repaired to mitigate the identified problems. It would also address the damp and mould, draughts, and the residents concerns about the wall beneath the window. It would provide regular updates. It offered a total of £900 compensation (£400 for complaint handling, and £500 for time, trouble, and inconvenience).
  12. The resident contacted this Service on 2 September 2024. She said the poor condition of the windows caused her home to be cold. She was concerned this, along with damp and mould in the property, was negatively impacting her health.
  13. The landlord replaced the windows at the back of the flat in March 2025 (the evidence is unclear as to exactly when). The resident reports the landlord has agreed to replace the windows at the front before winter 2025. The resident reports there is still damp and mould in her bedroom and bathroom, along with concerns about the impact of this on her health.

 

 

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident’s complaints about the landlord’s handling of her request for a new kitchen and bathroom, and her reports regarding the standard of work to the garden wall and pathway, are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because these matters have not yet been raised as a formal compliant and investigated under the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

Scope

  1. The resident reports the issues with the windows, damp, mould and condensation have been ongoing for many years. This Service expects residents to raise complaints within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months of an issue occurring, and for landlords to respond within appropriate timescales. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint on 10 February 2023. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from 10 February 2022 onwards.
  3. The resident has raised concerns about the impact of the reported issues on her health. Although we can consider whether a landlord has acted reasonably in relation to the resident’s reported concerns, we cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s actions may have contributed to or exacerbated any health issues, nor can we calculate or award damages in relation to this. These are legal aspects better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Windows

  1. The tenancy agreement acknowledges the landlord’s duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LLTA) to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the walls, roof and windows. Repairs must be completed within a reasonable time of the landlord becoming aware of the disrepair. The landlord does not have a legal duty to carry out improvements, or renewals.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it will carry out repairs within the following timescales:
    1. Non-urgent repairs – completed within 28 calendar days (average target 10 working days).
    2. Programmed repairs (including window replacements and damp works) – completed within 60 calendar days (average target 33 days).
    3. Emergency – Attend within 2-4 hours (depending on urgency).
    4. Specialist works – completed within 60 calendar days (average target 33 days).

Delay

  1. The landlord did not complete repairs to the windows within a reasonable amount of time. It initially raised a repair job in relation to the broken or damaged windows on 27 September 2022.
  2. The front windows were repaired in January 2024 (repair work started 3 January 2024, and completed 8 January 2024). This was 468 days after the repair was logged, far in excess of the policy requirement to complete non-urgent repairs within 28 days.
  3. The back windows were replaced in March 2025. This was over 886 days, or 2 years 5 months, after the repair was first logged, far in excess of the policy requirement to complete programmed repairs (which the policy said included window replacements) within 60 calendar days. Although the landlord was not, strictly speaking, obliged to replace the windows, it did not carry out any repairs to the back windows, so the windows continued to be in disrepair until they were replaced.
  4. The landlord’s delayed remedies to the window disrepair was especially poor given it is not disputed that the windows were in poor condition, and there was reported difficulty heating the property, condensation, damp and mould, and negative impact on health.

Poor communication

  1. The landlord’s communication with the resident in connection with the windows was poor, and characterised by the following key failings:
    1. Did not clearly explain what it intended to do and when.
    2. Did not provide reasons for its decisions.
    3. Some communication was misleading.
    4. Not proactive in providing updates, with gaps in communication.
    5. Did not adequately manage the resident’s expectations.
  2. The following examples of poor communication are intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
  3. The landlord did not tell the resident it had rejected the quotation from the first specialist window contractor, or explain why. The second specialist window contractor inspected on or around 10 January 2023, and also provided a quotation to replace the windows. There is no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident after this to explain what would happen next. The resident was therefore unsure what the landlord intended to do about the windows.
  4. On 10 February 2023 the landlord’s repairs service booked an appointment with the resident for 8 March 2023. The evidence suggests the resident was not told what this appointment was for, and the landlord did not clarify this until its stage 1 response, on 7 March 2023.
  5. The landlord did explain within the stage 1 response that it had referred the quotation for the window replacement to its Specialist Works and Surveying departments, and “hoped to have made progress” on replacing the windows by 30 April 2023. It said had cancelled the 8 March 2023 appointment as no further repairs were required. This gave the impression the windows would be replaced, but the evidence shows the landlord had not yet reached a firm decision on whether to repair or replace the windows, and so the stage 1 response was misleading.
  6. Almost 2 and a half years passed between the window repair first being logged, and the repairs to the front windows, and renewal of the back windows. However, through this protracted period the landlord was not proactive in providing updates. The information it did provide was often in response to the resident asking for an update. There were long gaps in communication, with the resident at times, having to contact the landlord multiple times before it responded.
  7. For example, the resident contacted the landlord on 30 November 2023, 11 December 2023 and 3 January 2024 to say she was unclear whether the landlord intended to repair or replace the windows. She said this was because the surveyor who inspected on 20 October 2023 said the windows needed to be replaced, but after this an appointment has been arranged for a carpenter to repair. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident until the 19 February 2024 stage 2 response, despite the resident contacting the Chief Executive Officer 8 January 2024.
  8. The landlord acknowledged within its 19 February 2024 stage 2 response that its communication had fallen short of its service standards, and it apologised for the impact of this on the resident. This was appropriate. While the landlord did explain to the resident what had caused the delay in resolving the window disrepair, there was still a lack of clarity about what it intended to do next, and by when.
  9. As a result of the landlord’s poor communication the resident experienced uncertainty, expended unnecessary time and trouble chasing the landlord, felt the landlord did not care, and experienced frustration and distress.

Lack of clarity as to process

  1. There was a lack of clarity within the landlord and its repairs service contractor regarding the correct processes and procedures to follow in relation to the reported window disrepair, and request for new windows. This led to a confused and, poorly co-ordinated response, contribution to the delays in the landlord taking remedial action.
  2. For example, there was an apparent lack of clarity about the process to make a referral to the Specialist Works department. On 12 January 2023 the repairs service contractor asked for guidance on how to proceed, as the quote for the replacement windows was over £30,000. On 2 March 2023 the contractor asked the landlord for clarification on what to do. On 6 March 2023 the landlord advised the contractor to refer to Specialist Works. The stage 1 response, on 7 March 2023, said a referral to Specialist Works had been made. However on 14 March 2023 repairs contractor again asked the landlord if it should refer to Specialist Works. The correspondence shows the referral to Specialist Works still had not been made as late as 27 July 2023.
  3. There was also an apparent lack of clarity regarding when the windows were due to be renewed, and what to do regarding repair or renewal of the windows prior to the expected renewal date. For example, on 6 March 2023 the landlord told its repairs service contractor the windows were “not due for 10+ years.” However, the landlord’s internal correspondence for 29 March 2023 shows the landlord’s Stock Condition team advising the block was surveyed in 2021 and the surveyor recommended no works over the next 3 years. On 12 December 2023 the landlord asked its stock condition team to carry out a survey, but on 3 January 2024 the stock condition team said “That would not be a stock condition matter. You will need to ask repairs. Any issues before the renewal date, tenant should raise with repairs.”
  4. There was further confusion regarding the referral to the landlord’s Surveying team. On 7 March 2023 and 8 August 2023 the landlord told the resident it had referred to Surveying team, and was waiting for a response. However, on 21 September 2023 the landlord told its repairs service contractor that the Surveying team said had not received a referral.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged “a significant gap in its window repair and renewal process,” and outlined planned changes to its ways of working. This was appropriate.
  6. Considering the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for new windows overall, lack of clarity as to process, and lack of adequate oversight, caused a long delay in the landlord taking remedial action regarding the windows. This, coupled with the landlord’s poor communication, caused considerable inconvenience and distress to the resident, who reported a negative impact on her health. She expended unnecessary time and trouble chasing the landlord. This went on over a 29 month period. As a result, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration. The landlord is ordered to apologise, pay compensation of £900, and confirm to the resident when it intends to replace the windows at the front of the property.

Damp, mould and condensation

  1. The landlord’s repair duty under section 11 LLTA extends to the internal plasterwork. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004 to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act (HFFHHA) 2018 says landlords must ensure that homes are “fit for human habitation”.
  2. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy acknowledged that under HFFHHA landlords are responsible for repairs and “freedom from damp.” The policy said the landlord would investigate all reports of damp, mould and condensation, and make sure it completed any necessary repairs. The policy said the landlord would be proactive, by investing in its homes, including through renewals of roofs, windows and heating systems.
  3. The landlord carried out a mould treatment and redecorated in the resident’s bedroom on 10 May 2022. This was following a leak from the boiler on 10 February 2022. However, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and condensation after this was very poor.
  4. In her 10 February 2023 complaint she said that as a result of window disrepair the home was expensive to heat, and there was condensation, damp and mould on all of the windows. On 7 September 2023 she told the landlord there was mould in the bedroom, and she was concerned this was impacting her health. On 3 October 2023 she sent the landlord photographs of the mould on the bedroom walls. On 31 October 2023 she told the landlord she was concerned the mould was causing her cough.
  5. The landlord said within its 19 February 2024 stage 2 response that it would address the damp and mould, but there is no evidence seen that the landlord responded to the resident’s repeated reports prior to this. There is no evidence seen that the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection, provided any advice to the resident, carried out any mould treatment, or expedited works to the windows prior to this.
  6. There is no evidence seen that the landlord considered its policy requirement to be proactive in preventing damp and mould, including by investing in renewals of roofs, windows and heating systems.
  7. The landlord’s response is particularly poor given the resident’s reported concerns regarding her health. As a result, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration in relation to this element of the complaint. The landlord is ordered to apologise, pay £300 compensation, and inspect and respond to the reported condensation, damp and mould.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy said it would log new complaints within 5 working days, and respond within 10 working days, unless an extension was notified and agreed with the complainant. This was in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) current at the time.
  2. The resident’s complaint to the landlord was made on 10 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 16 February 2023 (4 working days later), and telephoned the resident to discuss the complaint. This was appropriate. The stage 1 response was provided slightly late, on 7 March 2023, 13 working days after acknowledgement. The landlord did not notify and agree an extension.
  3. The Code said if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be escalated to stage 2 of the procedure, unless an exclusion ground applies. If the landlord decides not to escalate a complaint it must clearly communicate in writing its reasons for this.
  4. The policy said all requests for escalation to stage two must be received within 10 working days of receiving the stage one response. The process and time limit for requesting escalation to stage 2 was not made clear in the stage 1 response. Although the resident expressed general dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her request for new windows, this was not until 27 March 2023, 14 working days after the stage 1 response, and she did not explicitly ask how she could escalate the complaint to stage 2 until 27 July 2023. The landlord may therefore have been within its rights to decline to escalate the complaint, and provide the resident with a written statement of its reasons.
  5. However, the landlord did not explicitly do this, but sought to dissuade the resident from escalating the complaint. For example on 8 August 2023 it asked the resident to “consider remaining at stage 1 of our complaints process,” as if the complaint was escalated to stage 2 “you may experience further delays … with progressing the outstanding repairs.” It also failed to respond to her when, on 7 September 2023, she said that she said she “may need to escalate” the complaint. The resident asked again how she could escalate the complaint on 16 November 2023.
  6. On 21 November 2023 the landlord told the resident that escalating to stage 2 would not guarantee the works would happen quicker. It asked her to explain her reasons for dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response, and what outcome she wanted to achieve, and warned “escalation could mean any offer is decreased.”
  7. The landlord told the resident it had escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 3 January 2024, but it did not send a formal complaint acknowledgement letter until 29 January 2024.
  8. The landlord’s complaints policy said a stage 2 response would be provided within 20 working days of the request being received. This time limit would only be extended if more time was needed to complete the review fully. This would be communicated to, and agreed with, the complainant.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 February 2024, 33 working days after the complaint was logged at stage 2, and 144 working days (almost 7 months) after the resident first requested escalation to stage 2. It had not agreed an extension of time with the resident.
  10. The stage 2 response contained a sincere apology, acknowledgement of the landlord’s failings, and a detailed explanation of the learning the landlord had taken from this, and the service improvements it planned to implement. This was appropriate.
  11. Between the resident’s complaint on 10 February 2023 and the stage 2 response, on 19 February 2024, the complaint was reassigned to a new complaint handler 7 times. The lack of continuity cannot but have impacted the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  12. Considering the landlord’s complaint handling overall, the stage 1 response was slightly late, but the more significant failings were the landlord attempting to dissuade the resident from escalating the complaint to stage 2, and the delayed stage 2 response. As a result of these failings, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration. The landlord is ordered to apologise and pay compensation of £150.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for new windows.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and condensation.
  3. In accordance with paragraphs 42.a. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her request for a new kitchen and bathroom is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  4. In accordance with paragraphs 42.a. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports regarding the standard of work to the garden wall and pathway is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 2 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must contact the resident to confirm when it intends to replace the windows at the front of the flat, and if there is any current disrepair to be remedied in the interim. The landlord must confirm this outcome of this contact in writing to the resident and this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report a senior officer of the landlord must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures, having regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must directly pay the resident compensation of £1,350, broken down as follows:
    1. £900 for its handling of the resident’s request for new windows.
    2. £300 for its handling of the resident’s reports of condensation, damp and mould.
    3. £150 for its complaint handling.
  4. The landlord must inspect the resident’s property for condensation, damp and mould, and if necessary, provide relevant advice to the resident, and agree reasonable steps for remedying this, with appointment dates if attendance by operatives is needed. The landlord must provide a report to the Ombudsman and the resident regarding the inspection and outcome within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  5. The landlord must consider the learning from this case, and in particular the efficacy of its communications and processes for movement of works between sections of its overall asset management service. If changes have already been put in place following this case the landlord must ensure that it has reasonable confidence that they will adequately mitigate the likelihood of a reoccurrence. The landlord provide a report to this Service and the resident within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that relevant staff involved in this case undertake complaint handling learning from our Centre for Learning ( https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/centre-for-learning/key-topics/complaint-handling/).