Peabody Trust (202422511)

Decision
Case ID	202422511
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	29 April 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat. She has multiple health conditions. She complained to the landlord in January 2025 about longstanding cracks, damp, and mould in the property. She made a further complaint in December 2025, raising the same issues and stated that the property was not suitable for her medical needs. We have investigated both of the resident’s formal complaints in this investigation.
2. The resident’s representative contacted us and the landlord about the issues. For clarity, we refer to all contact from the resident’s representative as “the resident” in this report.

What the complaint is about

3. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

a.     Cracks in the property.

b.     Damp and mould.

c.      The resident’s request to move.

4. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

5. We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of cracks in the property.
6. We find service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
7. We find reasonable redress in:

a.     The resident’s request to move.

b.     The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

8. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

9. The landlord failed to manage the reported cracks proactively, with significant delays in investigation and in acting on recommendations made in May 2025. Its failure to follow through on agreed actions, consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, and keep her informed caused ongoing distress and uncertainty.
10. The landlord responded promptly to reports of damp and mould but did not adequately assess whether ventilation was effective or follow up on its commitment to review the bathroom inspection. It missed opportunities to respond appropriately to the resident’s health concerns. While it acknowledged shortcomings and its offer of £300 compensation was fair and reasonable, the lack of follow‑up amounts to service failure.
11. The landlord caused avoidable delay by failing to follow up the resident’s medical transfer request in April 2025. It also could not evidence how a later medical transfer decision was reached. However, it provided rehousing advice and explained how the resident could request the decision be reconsidered. It offered £200 compensation, which we consider proportionate and reasonable redress for the failings identified.
12. The were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. It acknowledged its failings and offered fair and proportionate compensation, as it reflects the detriment caused to the resident by the delays identified.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 29 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1000 made up as follows: · £700 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by its handling of cracks in the property. · £300 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by its handling of damp and mould. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 29 May 2026
4	Risk assessment The landlord must complete a risk assessment. This must consider the habitability of the property, taking into account the structural concerns and the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord must share the outcome with the resident and us in writing.	No later than 29 May 2026
5	Action plan The landlord must provide the resident with a written action plan. This must clearly set out the steps it will take to complete the recommendations from the structural inspection completed on 13 May 2025, including relevant timescales. It should also take into account any relevant findings from the risk assessment it has completed.	No later than 12 June 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should reoffer the resident £300 compensation, broken down as: £200 compensation it offered the resident for its handling of her request to move. £100 compensation it offered the resident for its handling of the associated complaint.   Our findings of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the compensation will now be paid
The landlord should contact the resident to arrange an inspection of her current damp and mould concerns.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 January 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said Structural cracks had been unresolved for 6 years. The cracks had worsened over time. She said she was concerned about the safety of the property and that the landlord had not taken action. The ongoing situation was affecting her health and causing distress to her and her family.
28 January 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: A damp and mould appointment was booked for 4 February 2025. It repaired cracks to the property on 13 June 2024. It said it raised a further appointment to plaster the cracks however the resident said she did not want the works to be completed by a particular contractor.
1 September 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: A surveyor had visited the property and confirmed the issue, but the landlord had not taken action. The cracks were widening and were a safety risk. She said she was concerned that the kitchen structure could fail. She wanted the landlord to confirm the next steps and provide a clear timeframe for when repairs would begin.
4 November 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: A structural engineer inspected the property in May 2025. They recommended monitoring structural movement for 12 months. The surveying team would complete periodic checks and provide updates. Once the monitoring period ends, the findings would be reviewed. It said that if remedial structural work was required, it would arrange repair as a priority. Communication following the structural survey could have been clearer. It apologised for the uncertainty and frustration and provided the resident with a named contact. It offered £250 compensation, broken down as: £100 for time and trouble. £150 for distress and inconvenience.
16 December 2025	The resident raised a further complaint to the landlord. She said: The property had structural cracking, severe cold, damp, condensation and persistent mould growth. She said the property was unsafe and unfit for occupation. She had multiple long term medical conditions which were substantially and adversely affected by the conditions of the property. The landlord requiring her to live in a property that worsens her medical conditions may amount to disability discrimination. She wanted a senior manager to review her case. She also wanted to be moved urgently and the landlord to recognise the property as medically unsuitable. She asked for an action plan.
27 January 2026	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It: Said a senior manager reviewed her previous complaint on 4 November 2025. Said that medical moves must be assessed by the lettings and rehousing team, who would contact the resident. It said it had not received the resident’s medical forms. Provided the resident with rehousing options. Offered £250 compensation, broken down as: £150 for distress and inconvenience. £100 for time and trouble.
2 February 2026	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: The lettings team had not contacted her. The landlord had not answered her main concern that the property was not suitable for her due to her medical conditions. She said repairs alone were not sufficient and she needed urgent rehousing. The compensation offered did not reflect the distress, inconvenience and impact on her physical and mental health. She asked for it to be reviewed. She wanted immediate confirmation of the status of her medical assessment and a clear timescale for when a decision would be made on her rehousing. She wanted to know why the landlord had allowed the situation for seven years.
27 February 2026	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It: Said it could not investigate issues that occurred more than 12 months before the resident made her complaint. Said it was reviewing the outcome of the damp and mould inspection completed in November 2025 and provided a named contact for updates. Said it had responded to repair requests but that it could have been more proactive in identifying and addressing the underlying cause of the damp and mould. It said it had not seen evidence that the threshold for a temporary move had been met. Apologised for not responding to the resident’s request for a medical transfer in April 2025. It said that once received, her application was referred to the medical panel who did not award rehousing on medical grounds. Said that medical assessments consider medical evidence only and do not take account of outstanding repairs or property condition. Said it did not have records of inspections during the structural cracks monitoring period. It said it had arranged for a surveyor to visit the property to assess the cracks. Offered £600 compensation and provided a breakdown of: a.     £500 for distress and inconvenience. £150 for its handling of the resident’s rehousing request. £50 failing to update the resident on her medical move. £300 delay in identifying the cause of damp and mould. b.     £100 for time and trouble £50 delay in providing stage one response. £50 delay in providing stage 2 acknowledgment.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In summary the resident said her and her daughter’s health has been severely affected by conditions in the property. She said the landlord has not taken any action and she wanted to move properties.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of cracks in the property
Finding	Maladministration

13. In contact with us and the landlord, the resident said the property condition affected her physical and mental health. While we understand the resident’s concerns about the impact on her, it would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. However we have considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about her health.
14. We acknowledge that there is a long history of the resident’s concerns about structural cracks in the property. We may not consider complaints which relate to historical events because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be available now. For the purpose of our investigation, we have considered the landlord’s handling of cracks in the property from 6 January 2025 when the resident told the landlord the cracks had worsened.
15. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
16. In January 2025 the resident reported that cracks in the property had worsened and that previously filled cracks had reappeared. She chased the landlord in April 2025 as she had not received an update. A structural engineer completed an inspection on 13 May 2025. This was 89 working days after the resident’s initial report. This exceeded the landlord’s repair policy, which states that where a specialist contractor is needed, diagnosis should be completed within 60 calendar days.
17. The structural inspection noted that the cracking appeared to have worsened since a previous repair. It recommended installing crack monitors for a 12‑month period to assess whether movement was ongoing. It also recommended removing plaster in several areas to establish whether the cracks were structural or limited to surface finishes. The inspection identified an open gap and loose sill brickwork. The report said it was a health and safety risk and required immediate repair to prevent falling debris and water ingress.
18. The landlord was unclear about how to manage the crack monitoring. Although the landlord discussed the issue internally, it did not update the resident. In September 2025 the resident told the landlord that no action had been taken since the inspection. The lack of clear oversight of the case meant the landlord did not take timely action. The resident was also left unclear on what actions, if any, the landlord would be taking. The landlord should have provided a single point of contact at that time to oversee the works and regularly update the resident.
19. In its stage 2 response dated 4 November 2025, the landlord provided the resident with clear next steps. It was positive the landlord provided the resident with an action plan and a single point of contact. Within this, the landlord committed to ensuring all recommendations from the structural survey were followed. It also said there would be regular checks to track any further movement. In its later stage 2 response dated 27 February 2026 the landlord could not identify that any inspections had been completed. The landlord did not meet the resident’s expectations and did not take proactive action to investigate and address the cracks within the property.
20. The resident has told us the ongoing cracks in the property have impacted her physical and mental health. It is clear in communication with the landlord that she was distressed by the condition of the property. The landlord did not acknowledge these concerns or show a proactive response. The lack of engagement would not have reassured the resident that her concerns were taken seriously. On 28 August 2025 the landlord sought internal confirmation on whether the property was habitable during the 12 month monitoring period and noted the resident’s vulnerabilities. There is no evidence it made a decision or carried out any further assessment. Examples of the landlord’s missed opportunities are:

a.     On 23 January 2025 the resident told the landlord that the issues in the property were affecting living conditions and her health.

b.     On 1 September 2025 the resident told the landlord she was very worried the kitchen structure would fail.

c.      On 16 December 2025 the resident told the landlord the property condition posed a serious risk to her physical and mental health.

21. Overall the landlord has not managed the cracks in the property in a clear or proactive way. There were unreasonable delays in arranging appropriate investigations. Following the structural inspection on 13 May 2025 the landlord failed to act on the recommendations. The landlord failed to fully consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and it did not keep her updated. The landlord did not meet the resident’s expectations as it failed to complete actions it committed to in its complaint response. These failures caused ongoing distress, inconvenience, and uncertainty for the resident. For these reasons, we find maladministration.
22. The landlord offered the resident a total of £250 compensation for this complaint point. This is not sufficient to address the ongoing distress, inconvenience and uncertainty caused to the resident by its failings. We have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £450 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is in line with our compensation guidance where there has been a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.
23. The resident raised concerns that the property was unsafe. As the landlord has not shown that it reached a decision on whether the property was habitable, we have ordered it to complete a risk assessment. This must consider the habitability of the property, taking into account the structural concerns and the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

24. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy states it takes a proactive approach to addressing damp and mould. It commits to carrying out any necessary repairs that would help tackle the issue.
25. The landlord’s repair records show that in the 12 months before the resident’s complaint, it raised several damp and mould repair jobs. In February 2025 the resident told the landlord that the damp and mould returned after every treatment. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated the underlying cause of the damp and mould at that time. It should have considered investigating further as there was a pattern of reoccurring reports of damp and mould.
26. The landlord completed a mould wash on 25 February 2025. On 14 April 2025, the resident said the damp and mould had been treated but would return. As the resident did not report active damp or mould, it was reasonable that the landlord did not raise further works at that time as it could not reasonably anticipate future recurrence.
27. The landlord was provided with a doctor’s letter dated 14 April 2025 stating the resident was unable to sleep in her bedroom due to mould. It is unclear when this was received by the landlord. It should have contacted the resident on receipt to clarify whether there was any active damp or mould and to assess whether further investigation or action was needed in light of the reported health impact. This failure meant the resident was not contacted to clarify her situation or reassured that her health concerns were being considered.
28. There is no evidence of further reports of active damp and mould until 8 November 2025 when the landlord logged a repair relating to damp and mould in the bathroom. The landlord responded to the resident’s repair requests within a reasonable timescale and completed 3 inspections and 3 mould washes between 11 November 2025 and 27 January 2026. The landlord considered the resident’s circumstances and completed a vulnerability assessment.
29. During this time, the landlord identified small spots of mould in the bathroom. The landlord’s records show it believed the mould was caused by condensation and may have been affected by ventilation use, including whether the extractor fan was used and windows were opened during showering. There is no evidence the landlord completed any checks if ventilation, such as the extractor fan, was adequate or working effectively. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess this given the repeated recurrence of mould despite previous treatments.
30. Overall, the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and considered her vulnerabilities. However, it did not take reasonable steps to assess whether the ventilation was working effectively to prevent the mould from returning. It also missed opportunities to follow up appropriately after the resident provided evidence relating to health concerns. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it could have been more proactive and offered the resident £300 compensation, which we consider proportionate and reasonable for the failings identified.
31. In its stage 2 response the landlord also said it would review the outcome of the bathroom inspection and update the resident, there is no evidence this was followed up. For this reasons, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
32. The resident has told us that damp and mould are currently present in multiple rooms of the property, particularly her bedroom, and that the property smells strongly of damp. These are not matters that we have investigated, but we have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident to arrange an inspection of her current damp and mould concerns.

 

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move
Finding	Reasonable redress

33. The landlord’s rehousing policy states the criteria for a priority move is when a resident needs to move for medical reasons and there are exceptional circumstances.
34. The policy also states:

a.     The landlord will only refer medical applications for independent assessment where it believes the resident has a disability or medical need, alongside other exceptional circumstances, and where the current home has a severe impact on daily life.

b.     The landlord will award disability or medical priority to an applicant, whose household needs to move due to a medical condition which will cause permanent damage or disability if they do not move.

35. We acknowledge that the resident applied for a medical transfer in 2024 and she was not granted medical priority. We may not consider complaints which relate to historical events because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be available now. For the purpose of our investigation, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move from April 2025 as this formed the basis of her formal complaint to the landlord.
36. The resident told the landlord in April 2025 that she wanted to move properties and had supporting medical evidence. The landlord advised her how to apply for a medical transfer but did not follow this up. As a result, the resident made a further request in December 2025. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged it did not follow up and apologised.
37. On 3 February 2026 the resident told the landlord that she had received a response from the medical assessment team and asked how the decision was reached. In its stage 2 response it said the medical advisor considered the information submitted at that time, did not award medical priority and provided an outcome to the resident on 2 February 2026.
38. We requested a copy of the medical transfer application and the assessment outcome, but the landlord could not provide these. While there appears to be no dispute that the medical assessment team was involved and she was provided with an outcome, the absence of records means the landlord has not demonstrated what information was considered or how the decision was reached. This means the landlord cannot show that it acted fairly or in line with its own process.
39. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained how the resident could request a reconsideration of her medical transfer decision and provided a leaflet setting out other housing options. This was positive as it helped the resident to understand the steps available to her.
40. In summary, the landlord failed to follow up the resident’s medical transfer request in April 2025, which caused avoidable delay. While it later provided an outcome, it could not supply records of the application or decision‑making process, meaning it could not show how the resident’s medical circumstances were considered. The landlord provided the resident with rehousing advice, explained how the decision could be reconsidered, and offered £200 compensation. We consider the apology and compensation as fair and proportionate, addressing the detriment caused to the resident and in line with our compensation guidance for the failings identified.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

41. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will log complaints within 5 working days and issue a full stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement. At stage 2, it will acknowledge escalation requests within 5 working days and provide a full response within 20 working days of acknowledgement. If more time is needed, the policy states the landlord will give the resident a clear response timeframe.

The resident’s formal complaint on 6 January 2025

42. The landlord’s stage 1 acknowledgment was issued 2 working days late. It apologised for the delay and, in our view, the short delay caused no detriment to the resident. On 23 January 2025 the landlord told the resident it needed to extend the response deadline to 28 January 2025. It then met the revised timescale.
43. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation after 13 working days, which was outside its policy timescales. The stage 2 response was also delayed and was issued 33 working days later. While the landlord identified learning in relation to responding to complaint timescales, it did not acknowledge the specific delays in this case or apologise to the resident.

The resident’s formal complaint dated 16 December 2025

44. It is unclear when the landlord received the resident’s complaint letter. Given the festive period and possible reduced office hours, the landlord confirming receipt on 6 January 2026 was reasonable. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 3 working days later. There was a minor delay of 1 working day in issuing the stage 1 response.
45. The stage 2 acknowledgment was provided in 16 working days, which was outside the timescale in its policy. It provided its stage 2 response on time.
46. Overall, there were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. In its stage 2 response dated 27 February 2026, the landlord offered £100 compensation for complaint handling failures. Although the offer did not relate to both formal complaints considered in this investigation, we consider the total amount fair and reasonable. This is because it reflected the detriment to the resident and was proportionate to the failings we have identified.

Learning

47. There is learning for the landlord to take from this case. The landlord should consider how it manages cases requiring specialist input, such as structural surveys and ongoing monitoring, to ensure recommendations are tracked, acted on, and communicated clearly to residents, particularly where health and safety risks are identified.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

48. The landlord should consider its record keeping arrangements for medical transfer assessments to ensure decisions can be evidenced and explained to residents in future. Improving record keeping will help prevent similar issues and support transparency.

Communication

49. The landlord should improve its communication with residents by ensuring it provides clear updates, follows up when further action is required, and explains decisions in a timely and transparent way. Regular contact, clear ownership of cases, and accurate record‑keeping would help manage expectations, reduce uncertainty, and provide reassurance that residents’ concerns are being taken seriously.