From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Peabody Trust (202421775)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421775

Peabody Trust

20 August 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 concerns regarding its communication about and use of fire-retardant paint in the communal areas.
    2. The complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant since July 2013. The property is a 2 bedroom, ground floor flat. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to suggest that the resident made the landlord aware of any allergies in advance of the works.
  2. On 7 November 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her that it would be conducting decoration works on the communal areas of the block of flats. This included painting and redecorating the communal hallway. The letter said the works were due to start on 15 November 2022. However, the works did not start until around 12 April 2023.
  3. The resident raised her complaint on 17 April 2023. She said the paint the landlord used to repaint the hallway had been toxic, caused an allergic reaction and she had had to go to hospital with breathing problems. She said she had asked the painters to stop using it but they ignored her and carried on anyway.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 on 16 November 2023. It said it should have made the resident aware of the works so she could take any necessary precautions. It said it was still looking into if and how it communicated this to the resident and confirmed it would compensate her if it had not. It said that all paints are hazardous and while fire retardant paint has additional chemicals it was required to use this in order to comply with fire safety regulations. That said, it acknowledged that it should have addressed the matter better regarding tenant well-being. The landlord also said that the delay in its responding to the resident complaint was due to an administrative error. It apologised for the impact of this delay and confirmed it would compensate her once its investigation was complete.
  5. On 26 March 2024 the landlord issued a second stage 1 response. It apologised for the lack of conclusion to the resident’s complaint and said the further delay was due to another administrative error. It said that following its initial response it had found that it had not correctly notified the tenants in her block about the communal paint works. It apologised for this and the distress it caused her. It said it was reviewing the process to ensure this doesn’t happen again and it had emphasised the importance of giving residents proper notice. The landlord also said it was unable to compensate for any effect the situation had on her health but provided details for how the resident could raise a personal injury claim if she wished. In recognition of its failures the landlord offered a total of £350 compensation broken down as:
    1. £100 for failing to notify the resident about the communal paint works.
    2. £100 for poor customer service.
    3. £150 for poor complaint handling.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 7 April 2024. She said she was unhappy that it had taken a year for the landlord to fully respond to her complaint and she felt this was disrespectful. She said she was unhappy with its response because she felt it had been negligent and this could have caused her serious harm.
  7. On 8 April 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident and asked for further information about her escalation request. Within this email the landlord also said that it had decided to increase the compensation offered for its poor complaint handling from £150 to £225.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 27 July 2024. It reiterated that regulations required the communal areas to be painted with fire-retardant paint to enhance safety. However, it acknowledged that it should have made her aware of when the works would be carried out so she could take any necessary precautions for her health. It confirmed it had raised this with its contractors so they can put checks in place to ensure the correct notifications go out to residents in timely fashion. In recognition of its failings the landlord offered a further £500 compensation:
    1. £400 for the lack of appropriate communications about the works and the impact the works had on her.
    2. £100 for the length of time it took for the landlord to reply to both stages of the complaint.
  9. The resident confirmed that she wanted this Service to investigate the complaint on 17 February 2025. She said she felt that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously and she was not convinced that this would not happen again. She said the landlord should have warned tenants about the health risks of the fire retardant paint. She confirmed she had declined the compensation offered by the landlord and that she wanted:
    1. The issues reflected in a review of its policies and procedures and for this review to be communicated to residents.
    2. The landlord to apologise to residents in a newsletter and inform them of what it will do to safeguard against these errors in future.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

  1. In the complaint the resident has spoken about how the landlord’s use of the fire retardant paint had an impact on her health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any effect on health and wellbeing. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be decided by the courts, as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman can consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.

Communication about and use of fire retardant paint

  1. The landlord’s policies do not refer to how far in advance of works it will notify residents nor what information will be contained within such notices.
  2. The landlord sent the resident a notification of planned redecoration works on 7 November 2022. The letter informed her that the works would include painting to all previously painted areas and the decoration of communal hallways. The letter also said the works would start on 15 November 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to have issued this letter informing the resident of upcoming works in her building.
  3. However, the records seen show that the works did not start on 15 November 2022 as stated but rather around 12 April 2023. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show that the landlord issued any notifications regarding the delay to the works and to provide a new start date. Additionally, in its second stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that it had not correctly notified the tenants in the block about the communal paint works and any precautions they may have needed to take. This was unreasonable and caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience as she could have taken the necessary precautions to minimise the impact of the paint fumes had she been aware of when the works would take place.
  4. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident believes the landlord should also have warned tenants about the health risks of the fire retardant paint it was going to use. However, the safety data sheet for the paint used by the landlord says there are no ingredients in it which are classified as ‘hazardous to health or the environment’. Therefore, while it is not in dispute that the resident reports having had a reaction to the paint fumes, based on this report there were no known health risks associated with the paint for the landlord to warn tenants about.
  5. Furthermore, it was appropriate for the landlord to paint the communal areas with fire retardant paint as it was legally required to do so in order to comply with health and safety regulations. The records also show the landlord spoke to its contractors and they confirmed they kept the windows in the hallway and staircase open while the works were carried out to provide proper ventilation. However, they confirmed that these were closed at the end of each day because at the time there was scaffolding erected on the outside of the building and to leave the windows open would pose a security risk. These were reasonable and appropriate steps to take while the works were ongoing.
  6. Overall the landlord’s failure, as set out above, can be summarised as failing to adequately notify the resident about the delays to the planned works and to provide a new start date.
  7. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  8. Having taken into consideration the impact the landlord’s failings had on the resident, the Ombudsman finds that the total amount of £600 offered for this head of compensation is reflective and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. This is because the landlord has compensated the resident for the tangible detriment caused by its lack of appropriate communications about the works and the impact these had on her. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made a finding of reasonable redress.
  9. However, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review and consider the adequacy of the measures set out in its complaint responses. This is to ensure confidence in its ability to mitigate the impact of any future works on tenants. This is especially the case if there are any tenants known to have health issues.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of it being logged. It also says the landlord will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the date of the escalation request. The policy says that should more time be needed at either stage, the landlord will inform the resident and an extension will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 2 without good reason.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 17 April 2023 and the landlord issued its initial stage 1 response on 16 November 2023. Within this response the landlord explained the delay was due to the complaint being allocated incorrectly which caused a delay in it being picked up by the correct team. It also confirmed that it had not fully completed its investigation into the resident’s complaint. However, it said that as a result of the failings it had identified it would be looking at retraining the call centre staff on raising complaints and service requests.
  3. The records seen show that between 17 April 2023 and 16 November 2023 the resident chased the landlord several times directly, via social media and through the local council. Despite this, it still took the landlord 6 months to respond to the resident’s complaint. Additionally, despite the amount of time that had passed, the landlord failed to complete its investigation within these 6 months. This was not only a significant delay but also indicates poor record keeping and a lack of oversight within the landlord’s complaint handling processes.
  4. The landlord then issued a second stage 1 response 5 months later on 26 March 2024. It explained that the further delay had been caused due to its failure to re-allocate the resident’s complaint in the new year as well as the backlog caused by an unexpected surge in complaints and changes to its processes. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures and offered £150 compensation to reflect this. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failings and offer compensation. However, the cause of this additional delay was a similar administrative error to that which caused the original delay. This indicates the landlord failed to learn from its previous mistakes and to take steps to prevent them happening in future. The landlord later increased the compensation offered to £225 on 8 April 2024, after the resident had requested it escalate her complaint.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 7 April 2024 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 July 2024. This was a further significant delay which was not in keeping with the landlord’s complaints policy. In recognition of the ‘length of time to complete both complaint stages’ the landlord offered the resident a further £100 compensation. It also said the feedback from this response would be used to review the handling of this case and to ensure similar delays do not occur in future.
  6. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord’s stage 2 response does not explain why it took over 3 months for it to be issued. Rather, it only refers to the overall delays in it investigating the resident’s complaint as being due to the landlord initially misallocating it due to ‘a training oversight’ with its call centre staff. This was unreasonable as the landlord failed to acknowledge there had been significant and repeated complaint handling failures throughout the complaints process and not just at the beginning.
  7. Overall, it was appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged its poor handling of the resident’s complaint and its failure to adhere to the timescales within its complaints policy. Having taken into consideration the delay and the impact this had on the resident, the Ombudsman finds that the total amount of £325 offered for the delays is reflective and proportionate to the impact on the resident. This is because the landlord has addressed its repeated delays to the complaint and has adequately compensated the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by them.
  8. However, the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles state that when resolving complaints landlords have to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In this instance, no evidence has been seen to show that the landlord identified any learning for its complaint handlers or made improvements to its complaint handling procedures to prevent the significant delays caused by them occurring in future. As such the ombudsman finds that there has been maladministration in this respect.
  9. In view of this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to review the complaint handling failures and delays identified in this report. Through this review it must identify learning opportunities regarding oversight of its complaint handling procedure and its compliance with its complaints policy timescales.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding its communication about and use of fire-retardant paint in the communal areas.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its failures. This written apology must be from a member of the landlord’s management team and it may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance on our website.
    2. Directly pay the resident the total compensation amount of £325 offered through its complaints process for its handling of the complaint.
    3. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has undertaken a review of this case and identified learning opportunities, in particular with regards to:
      1. A suitable methodology to ensure adequate oversight, for example by dip sample, of its complaint handling process.
      2. Make clear to its complaint handlers the importance of adequate record keeping and adhering to its complaints policy timescales.
  2. The landlord is to reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should directly pay the resident the £600 compensation it offered through its complaints process for its handling of her concerns regarding the fire retardant paint. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress determination is made on the basis that this amount is paid.
  2. The landlord should review and consider the adequacy of the mitigation measures set out in its complaint responses. This is to ensure confidence in its ability to minimise any potential impact of future works on tenants most affected by virtue of the proximity of their homes to the main area of works.
  3. The landlord should write to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to set out its intentions regarding the above recommendation.