Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Peabody Trust (202421770)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421770

Peabody Trust

30 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the boiler.
    2. Updates to the resident’s tenancy details.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord does not record any vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. On 8 February 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that he had no heating and hot water.
  3. On 14 February 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. He said:
    1. A contractor told him his boiler may need replacing. He was given 2 temporary heaters and told someone would contact him the next day, it did not happen. The temporary heaters had significantly increased his electricity bill.
    2. The boiler replacement was booked for 16 February 2024. He said he had Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) and the additional time without hot water was detrimental to his health condition.
  4. On 28 August 2024 the resident contacted us. He asked for assistance as the landlord had not addressed his complaints.
  5. Following our intervention, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 December 2024. It:
    1. Said a contractor inspected the boiler and found a serious fault. The contractor isolated the boiler and recommended replacement. A new boiler was installed on 16 February 2024.
    2. Said rubbish left by the contractors caused inconvenience to the resident. The rubbish was removed on 4 March 2024.
    3. Said there had been a delay in updating its system following the tenancy changing from a joint tenancy. It was sorry for any delay and confusion.
    4. Offered £282 compensation, broken down as:
      1. £100 for inconvenience.
      2. £150 for delays.
      3. £24 for no heating at £3 a day for 8 days.
      4. £8 for no hot water for 8 days at £1 per day.
  6. On 7 January 2025 the resident escalated his complaint. He said:
    1. The compensation offered did not reflect the impact the issues had on his health and wellbeing.
    2. There were delays in updating his tenancy status and responding to his complaint.
    3. During the new boiler installation, contractors disconnected his cooker due to concerns of a gas leak. He contacted the landlord, but it took no further action. He arranged for his cooker to be assessed by an engineer, who confirmed he did not have a gas leak.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 March 2025. It:
    1. Said it’s stage 1 response was correct, and the compensation offer was fair and reasonable.
    2. Said the tenancy records issue had not been fully addressed. It had forwarded the deed of release to the neighbourhood manager who would contact the resident.
    3. Said there had been service failure in its complaint handling.
    4. Said the resident raised issues separate to his original complaint. The landlord provided a response in a separate email to him.
    5. It offered £100 compensation for complaint handling failures, increasing its total compensation offer to £382.
  8. On 8 April 2025 the resident confirmed he wanted us to investigate his complaint. In summary, he said the landlord failed to acknowledge and address multiple serious issues. The compensation offered did not reflect the distress, inconvenience and financial hardship caused to him.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident reported to us and the landlord that the issues forming his complaint impacted his health and wellbeing.
  2. We are unable to assess the extent to which a landlord’s actions may have contributed to or exacerbated any physical or mental health issues. Such matters require a decision by a court or through an insurance claim. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim for damages. We have, however, considered the overall distress and inconvenience the issues may have caused.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states it aimed to attend emergency repair appointments within 4 hours and complete within 24 hours. The landlord may complete a temporary or “make safe” repair in certain circumstances.
  2. The landlord attended the property on the same day the repair was reported. It was reasonable for the contractor to isolate the boiler and make safe as it had a severe leak. The new boiler was installed on 16 February 2024 within a reasonable timeframe.
  3. The landlord’s repair records noted the resident was vulnerable and had a health condition which meant he had to bath daily. The resident chased the landlord on 12 February 2024 and said he suffered from health conditions and required regular washing.
  4. The evidence shows the landlord liaised internally requesting the referral for a new boiler was actioned quickly. It approved the repair within 1 working day of receiving the referral. The landlord showed it was mindful of the resident’s circumstances. As the resident was without heating in February it was reasonable the landlord provided 2 temporary heaters. However it did not consider any additional support to enable the resident had appropriate washing facilities. This would have been reasonable as it was aware of the resident’s health needs.
  5. On 19 February 2024 the resident told the landlord that contractors had left rubbish outside his property, and it affected access for an ambulance crew who attended his property. The evidence shows the landlord did not collect the rubbish for 10 working days. The evidence does not explain why the rubbish was not collected sooner. The delay caused inconvenience to the resident.
  6. In February 2024, the resident told the landlord he completed a heating compensation form but had not heard anything. The resident spent time chasing the landlord about his compensation request in March and May 2024. In line with its compensation policy on 22 May 2024 the landlord offered the resident £32 for 8 days loss of heating and hot water. The resident provided his bank details. We have seen no evidence this was paid to the resident.
  7. The resident requested further reimbursement for his increased electricity bill while using the temporary heaters. He told the landlord he spent £95 and could provide evidence. We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s request. It was unreasonable it did not provide the resident with a response.
  8. In the landlord’s formal complaint response, it re-offered £32 for loss of heating and hot water. However, it was silent about the resident’s additional reimbursement request. It missed the opportunity to confirm its position to the resident.
  9. We find service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler. This is because:
    1. It could have done more to fully consider the impact no hot water had on the resident. It did not show it fully considered his vulnerabilities and if it needed to offer the resident further support.
    2. The resident had to chase the landlord for a response to his completed compensation form. It then did not pay the resident the loss of heating and hot water payment it offered.
    3. It did not consider the resident’s request for additional reimbursement. It was unreasonable that it did not provide the resident with a response.
  10. The landlord offered £100 compensation to the resident. It was positive the landlord recognised the resident had been inconvenienced, however in our view it does not fully reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. We therefore order an additional £150 in line with our remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of updating the resident’s tenancy details

  1. The resident complained to the landlord that his tenancy had not been updated, following his ex-partner being removed from the tenancy. The landlord’s position was the tenancy could not be updated on its system as the legal process had not been completed to remove the resident’s ex-partner from the tenancy. The resident told the landlord that a deed of release had previously been signed.
  2. The landlord did not have a copy of the deed of release and relied upon the resident providing this. The landlord received it on 13 May 2024. The landlord’s system was updated on 22 May 2024. It is unclear why the system was not originally updated or why the landlord did not have the original paperwork. Upon receiving the deed of release, it apologised to the resident that it was not previously actioned. We have seen no evidence that the resident was updated once the tenancy change had been completed. It missed an opportunity to reassure the resident his tenancy details had been corrected.
  3. The resident has told us that he remains unclear if his tenancy has been updated. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to write to the resident confirming he is the sole tenant of the property.
  4. In its stage 1 response, it offered an apology to the resident for the delay and confusion caused. It also offered £150 compensation. In our view the compensation and apology offered by the landlord during its internal complaints process was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused, and in line with our remedies guidance. We have therefore made a determination of reasonable redress. This is because, in our opinion the landlord made an offer which put things right for the resident. We have made a recommendation that the landlord re-offers the resident the £150 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledging them and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. Section 1.2 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states “A complaint must be defined as: ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord.”
  3. The Code states landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
  4. The resident raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s repair service to the landlord on 14 February 2024. The landlord emailed the resident and said it would confirm it had registered the complaint within 5 working days. We have seen no evidence the landlord logged a formal complaint.
  5. The resident chased the landlord in April 2024 and May 2024 for a response to his complaint. On 22 May 2024 the landlord confirmed what it thought the resident’s complaint was and gave an update on actions it had taken. It provided the resident with a weblink to use if he wanted to make a formal complaint. This would have been confusing for the resident as he had already raised a complaint.
  6. Following our intervention, the landlord provided its stage 1 response 10 months after the resident’s original complaint. There was a significant delay in providing a response. The resident had to spend time contacting us for assistance. The landlord’s delayed response would have caused distress to the resident.
  7. On 7 January 2025 the resident escalated his complaint. He contacted the landlord on a further 2 occasions to check the landlord received his request. The landlord sent an acknowledgement on 15 February 2025 and apologised for the delay in allocating his case. The delay in escalating the resident’s complaint would have made him feel the landlord was not taking his complaint seriously.
  8. In the resident’s escalation request, he raised concerns relating to gas safety. The landlord responded to this concerns separately to its complaint’s response. The landlord’s position was the resident had not raised the matter as part of his original complaint. The resident has told us that he feels it should have been addressed in his complaint response as he had raised the issue with the landlord.
  9. We have seen evidence that the resident told the landlord on 28 February 2024, in an email about multiple issues that he was dissatisfied with the service relating to his gas cooker. However, in our view, the landlord was reasonable to address the matter outside of its complaint response. This is because the landlord told the resident what it would be investigating in a telephone call on 16 December 2024 before issuing its stage 1 response. It was positive the landlord contacted the resident to understand his complaint as 10 months had passed since he originally complained. We have seen no evidence that the resident disagreed with the outline of his complaint or raised the gas safety issue at that time.
  10. In line with the Code, the landlord should have logged a new complaint for the gas safety concerns. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident and offer logging a new formal complaint.
  11. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said its stage 1 was “correct” however it failed to evidence how it had come to its decision. The landlord did not provide details of its investigation. It failed to show the resident it had fully considered his complaint.
  12. We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. This is because:
    1. It delayed logging the resident’s formal complaint. It was not until we became involved that it sent a formal response, which was not appropriate. Despite the severe delay at stage 1, it failed to offer any redress to put things right.
    2. It delayed logging and acknowledging the resident’s stage 2 response.
    3. It missed opportunities to evidence that it had fully investigated the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It did not address all the complaint points or evidence its decision making.
  13. The landlord apologised for the delay in allocating and responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint and offered £100 in compensation. However, this amount does not sufficiently reflect the trouble, inconvenience, and effort caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures. We order the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler.
  2. In accordance with 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of updating the resident’s tenancy details.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology to acknowledge the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £482 compensation. This comprises the £232 it offered in addition to £250 broken down as:
      1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the boiler repair.
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its complaint handling.
      3. This should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any possible arears.
    3. Write to the resident and request evidence of the additional costs incurred due to the use of temporary heaters. Once it has received the evidence, the landlord must write to the resident within 2 weeks confirming its position regarding the resident’s request for further reimbursement.
    4. Provide us with evidence the orders have been complied with.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should re-offer the resident £150 compensation, for the landlord’s handling of updating the resident’s tenancy details, if this has not yet already been paid. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid. The payment must be paid directly to the resident and not their rent account.
  2. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident and offers to log a formal complaint about the resident’s gas safety concerns.
  3. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to confirm his vulnerabilities and updates his tenancy record accordingly.
  4. We recommend the landlord writes to the resident to confirm that the landlord’s system has been updated and he is the sole tenant of the property.