Peabody Trust (202424061)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202424061 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Peabody Trust |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
23 February 2026 |
Background
1. The resident reported problems with her heating and hot water system, including leaks to the cold-water tank and pipes and low water pressure. She also reported loud noises from the system which she said were disrupting her children’s sleep. The landlord has advised us that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, the resident advised the landlord during the complaints process that one of her children was Autistic.
What the complaint is about
2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
- No heating or hot water.
- Loud noises from the water pump and the pipes.
- Damage to her floor coverings.
3. We have also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
4. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of no heating or hot water.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of loud noises from the water pump and the pipes.
6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to her floor coverings.
7. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
8. There were failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of having no heating or hot water which resulted in periods when the resident had no heating and/or hot water. Although the landlord provided temporary heating, the lack of heating and hot water caused significant distress and inconvenience for the resident, particularly as she had young and vulnerable children. However, the landlord apologised for its failings and offered fair and proportionate compensation to put things right after it had addressed the repairs.
9. There was a lack of communication with the resident regarding her reports that the heating and hot water system was making loud noises and disrupting her children’s sleep. The landlord did not use its complaint responses to adequately acknowledge its lack of communication or seek to put things right.
10. The contractor advised the resident beforehand that it would need to remove the floor covering to check underneath for a leak and that it would not be liable for any damage. It gave her details of its liability insurer so she could make a claim if she wished to do so.
11. There were various failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. However, it apologised for these failings and offered fair and proportionate compensation to put things right.
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:
|
No later than 24 March 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to her reports of loud noises from the water pump and the pipes. This must be paid directly to the resident and the landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. |
No later than 24 March 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord should reoffer the resident the £2,187 offered in its stage 2 reply.
Our findings of reasonable redress are made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident. |
|
The landlord should consider compensating the resident for the reported loss of hot water during the period from July to 15 September 2022. |
|
The landlord should carry out a joint visit with the contractor to assess and resolve any ongoing issues with the hot water pressure. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
25 August 2022 |
The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint as the resident had reported leaks from the water tank and said she only had mains cold water from the kitchen tap. |
|
20 February 2023 |
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply in which it said:
|
|
21 December 2023 |
The landlord logged a further stage 1 complaint as the resident said there was a water leak from the pipes in her property but said neither the landlord’s plumbers or heating engineers would take responsibility for carrying out the repairs. |
|
3 January 2024 |
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply to the complaint it had logged in December 2023. Its response said:
|
|
February and March 2024 |
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on various occasions as she said she had been without heating and hot water between 15 September 2023 and 3 January 2024 and she had now been without heating and hot water since 26 January 2024. She said she was also unhappy that the water pressure was causing the pipes to make loud noises and this was affecting the family’s sleep. |
|
12 June 2024 |
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply in which it said:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate her complaint as she said there were still unresolved issues regarding the heating and hot water and she considered the compensation offered by the landlord to be inadequate. |
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 response to the resident’s reports of no heating or hot water |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
12. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of gas, water, heating and hot water. These include water and gas pipes, boilers, water tanks, radiators and other space heating installations.
13. The landlord classifies repairs as either emergency or routine. With emergency issues, it aims to repair or make them safe within 4 hours. It aims to repair routine issues, such as minor leaks and blockages or replacing broken items, within 28 days.
14. The resident advised the landlord that the lack of heating had caused her children to suffer from flu and she had repeatedly taken them to see her GP. She also said that the issues had affected her health and had hampered her child’s development. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through insurers or the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
15. The resident advised us that she had experienced issues with the heating and hot water dating back to 2021. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as us, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. We therefore consider it fair and reasonable for our investigation to focus on the landlord’s handling of events from May 2022 when she reported problems with the heating and hot water.
16. On 25 May 2022, the landlord raised an order as the resident had no heating or hot water. The contractor attended on the same day, which was appropriate as the landlord had raised the job as an emergency. However, the job notes stated there was no access. The contractor therefore re-attended on 26 May 2022, which was appropriate as it had been unable to gain access the day before.
17. The contractor found there was a leak from the cold-water tank and there was no water in the property apart from the kitchen tap. The landlord supplied bottled water on 27 May 2022, which was a reasonable response as the resident had no water supply apart from in the kitchen. The landlord moved the resident to temporary accommodation on or about the 31 May 2022, which was reasonable as the resident had young children and the contractor had recommended replacing the water tank or installing a combination boiler.
18. The landlord’s records show that a new hot water cylinder and cold-water tank were installed on or about 10 June 2022 and therefore the contractor had completed the work within a reasonable timescale. The contractor also installed a new boiler in July 2022. However, the landlord’s records show that the resident reported problems with the heating and hot water system shortly after the new boiler was installed. The resident spoke to the landlord on 30 August 2022 and said she had been without heating and hot water since the new boiler was installed. The landlord’s records stated that it had attended on 24 August 2022 but there was no access.
19. The landlord’s records show that the contractor attended on 15 September 2022 and the system was left working. The resident disputed that she had failed to provide access in August 2022. Based on the evidence seen, we are unable to determine whether there were access issues. However, the evidence shows that there was a period from July to 15 September 2022 when the resident was reporting having no heating or hot water. Given that the resident had vulnerable, young children, it was inappropriate that she had been without heating and hot water during this period.
20. During September to November 2022, the resident reported that she had to regularly top up the boiler pressure as she said it kept decreasing. She said one of the contractor’s engineers had advised her that there might be a leak on one of the heating pipes. The contractor attended on 28 October 2022 and added a leak sealant solution to the system. The engineer noted that he left the system working. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the contractor’s report that it had added a leak sealant to address the leak and had left the system working.
21. The resident spoke to the landlord on 15 December 2022 and said that although the heating and hot water were working, the heating was not as effective as it should be. The contractor therefore booked an appointment and attended on 23 December 2022. The contractor attended within a reasonable timescale as the resident had not reported a complete loss of heating or hot water at that stage.
22. The contractor’s notes stated that the resident was not at home for the appointment on 23 December 2022 and instead her brother was present and advised the contractor that he was unaware of any issues with the heating or hot water. However, the contractor checked the boiler pressure and found it was not indicating a fault. It was reasonable that the contractor had attended on the appointed date and checked the boiler pressure as the resident had reported issues with the boiler pressure.
23. The contractor next attended on 19 January 2023 and added a cleaning solution to the system to flush the radiators through. This was reasonable as the resident had previously reported issues with the level of heat being generated by the central heating system.
24. In its stage 1 reply on 20 February 2023, the landlord said a plumber had attended on 26 January 2023 and reported that there was a leak from a heating pipe which was causing damage to the flooring. It apologised that the leak under the floor had not yet been resolved as its records showed that the leak had been identified in October 2022. It was unreasonable that the leak from the heating pipe had not been resolved, despite the contractor attending in October 2022 and adding a leak sealant to the system.
25. During March to June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord on various occasions to say that the contractor had not yet completed work to re-run the heating pipework so it would no longer be embedded in the flooring. This would enable the contractor to address the reported leak. However, the landlord’s records state that the contractor had tried to contact the resident on various occasions but had not been able to arrange an appointment or access the property. The records show that the landlord spoke to the resident in April and May 2023 and emphasised the importance of her providing access and keeping appointments with the contractor. Based on the evidence seen, the contractor and the landlord made reasonable efforts during this period to obtain access to re-run the heating pipes.
26. The contractor attended on 5 July 2023 and re-ran the pipes. It then attended on 21 August 2023 and made good all of the redundant pipe holes in the property. The landlord spoke to the resident on 4 October 2023 and she confirmed that the contractor had completed all of the work and she had not experienced any problems with the heating and hot water since. It was reasonable that the contractor had completed the agreed work to re-run the pipes and make good any holes.
27. On 20 November 2023, the resident reported that the water pressure on the hot tap was very low. The landlord’s records show that there was also a problem with the heating, for which the landlord raised an order on 30 November 2023. The resident contacted the landlord again on 21 December 2023 to say that the landlord had still not resolved the problems with the heating and hot water, despite visits from heating engineers and plumbers. The landlord spoke to the resident the next day and she confirmed that although she had hot water, she did not have heating. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not resolved the problems with the heating a month after the resident had reported the problem. The landlord’s records do, however, show that it delivered temporary heaters to the property on 19 December 2023.
28. The contractor fitted a new valve to the boiler on 3 January 2024 and the contractor’s notes say that the system was left in working order. It had therefore taken over 6 weeks for the landlord to repair the boiler so that the resident had fully functioning heating and hot water. The time taken was inappropriate as it was the winter period and the landlord was aware that the resident had young, vulnerable children.
29. The landlord’s repairs log shows that there were further intermittent problems with the heating during January 2024. On 25 January 2024 she reported that she had hot water but no heating. She contacted the landlord on 6 February 2024 to explain that her children had to stay in bed as it was too cold to allow them to move freely around the property. It is unclear when the heating was reinstated, however, the landlord spoke to the resident on 22 February 2024 and she confirmed that the heating and hot water were working. It was unreasonable that the resident had continued to experience intermittent problems with the heating during January and part of February 2024.
30. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported on 22 April 2024 that she had no heating or hot water. The contractor fitted a new pressure relief valve and pressure gauge to the boiler on 7 May 2024 and the heating and hot water were reinstated. It was unreasonable that the resident had continued to experience issues with the heating and hot water during this period.
31. Overall, we have found there were significant failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of having no heating or hot water. These failings resulted in periods when the resident had no heating and/or hot water. Although the landlord provided temporary heating, the lack of heating and hot water caused significant distress and inconvenience for the resident, particularly as she had young, vulnerable children.
32. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
33. In this case, the landlord acted fairly by apologising in its stage 2 reply for the trouble and inconvenience experienced by the resident while waiting for the heating and hot water to be repaired. It upheld her complaint and accepted that the time taken to resolve the issues had had a significant impact on the family. It therefore increased its offer of compensation.
34. The landlord offered a total of £2,187 of which £1,887 was for the loss of heating and hot water and £300 was for its complaint handling (this is considered below). The landlord used its compensation and remedies policy to calculate the periods for which it should compensate the resident for the loss of heating and hot water. This was reasonable as the policy stipulates the amounts it will offer and the criteria that must be met. For example, the landlord only offered compensation for the periods between October and April when the resident was without heating. This was in line with the policy and was therefore appropriate.
35. We have found that the periods used by the landlord to calculate the compensation for the loss of heating were broadly in line with our investigation and were therefore appropriate. However, the landlord did not include compensation for the period from July to 15 September 2022 when the evidence shows the resident did not have hot water. We have therefore recommended that the landlord considers paying compensation for the loss of hot water during this period.
36. As part of her referral to us, the resident said that the landlord’s calculations had been based on a household size of 5 people, rather than 6. However, the landlord’s compensation and remedies policy says that it will base its calculation for loss of hot water on the number of people on the tenancy record. In the resident’s case, the number of people on the tenancy agreement was 5 and therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to use this number. The resident may wish to ask the landlord to update its tenancy record to reflect the current number of people in her household.
37. The landlord offered £800 to compensate the resident for her time, trouble, inconvenience and stress (particularly due to the vulnerability of the children). The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy says that it will offer between £401 and £600 to compensate for time, trouble and inconvenience where a service failure has caused extensive disruption and there has been a high impact on the resident. In this case, the landlord exceeded these sums, which we consider was appropriate given the extended time to resolve the issues, the vulnerability of the household members and the distress and inconvenience caused.
38. The landlord’s award was also in the range of sums recommended in our Remedies Guidance for cases where there has been a significant physical and/or emotional impact. Therefore, we consider the landlord’s offer to have been fair and proportionate and we have made a finding of reasonable redress. In reaching our conclusion, we have taken into account that the landlord took some steps to mitigate the impact on the resident by providing temporary heating, moving the resident to temporary accommodation in 2022, replacing the boiler and re-running the pipes to ensure they were accessible.
39. The resident contacted us in February 2026 to say there were ongoing problems with the hot water pressure. Whilst we have considered this additional information, we have not investigated the ongoing reports of problems with the system. This is because a key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. In this case, we considered it fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response on 12 June 2024. However, we have recommended that the landlord carry out a joint visit with the contractor to assess and resolve any outstanding issues with the hot water system.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of loud noises from the water pump and the pipes |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
40. The resident contacted the landlord in July 2022 and reported that the water cylinder was making loud noises and was keeping the household awake at night. The landlord’s records show that the landlord attended on 27 July 2022 to check the system. It was reasonable for the landlord to have attended to check the system given that the contractor had recently installed a new water tank, pump and boiler. The notes from the inspection stated that a plumber was needed to replace the ball-valve, install a mat under the pump and “reconfigure poorly installed pump pipework”.
41. The landlord’s records state that it subsequently decided that no further works were required as the pipework was functional. However, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord advised the resident that it did not intend to carry out additional works. The lack of communication was unreasonable as the resident had reported that the pipes were making loud noises and keeping her awake and the landlord had not offered a solution or communicated its decision not to carry out further works.
42. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 February 2023 and said that the contractor’s supervisor had attended on 15 September 2022 and found that the heating and hot water were working but recommended additional parts and for the system to be flushed through with a cleaning solution. It was reasonable that a supervisor from the contractor had re-inspected the system to ensure it was functioning correctly. Having inspected the system, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the contractor’s findings and recommendations.
43. The landlord’s records show that the contractor attended on 15 January 2024 to carry out a quality control check on the system. The job order said that the heating and hot water were working but the booster pump was very noisy when in use. The resident then wrote to the landlord on 6, 14 and 22 February 2024 and said the system was continuing to make loud noises and was disrupting her children’s sleep. On 7 May 2024, the contractor carried out additional work to the system, including fitting a new pressure relief valve. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 June 2024 and confirmed that during a conversation with the resident on 28 May 2024, she said that the noise was no longer an issue.
44. The evidence shows that during January and February 2024 the resident had continued to report problems with the heating and hot water system making loud noises and disrupting her children’s sleep. We have not seen any evidence that during this period the landlord offered the resident a solution to the problem until works were carried out in May 2024.
45. The lack of communication with the resident during this period regarding the reported noise was unreasonable as she was known to have vulnerable children and she had advised the landlord that the noise was disrupting their sleep. It meant she did not know whether the landlord had plans for addressing the issue. We have therefore found there was service failure due to the landlord’s lack of communication regarding the reported noise from the pipes or pump. The landlord did not use its complaint responses to adequately acknowledge its lack of communication about the reported noise or seek to put things right. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation of £100 to recognise the additional distress caused by the lack of communication. The amount is within the range of sums identified in our Remedies Guidance for service failures which the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge or put right.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to her floor coverings |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
46. The resident has requested reimbursement for damage she said was caused by the landlord’s contractor when checking for a leak in the pipes. We do not consider it appropriate for us to make a decision on whether the landlord should reimburse the resident for the reported damage to the floor coverings. This is because we do not make binding decisions on matters such as negligence or liability. Therefore, we consider it would be fairer and more reasonable for the resident to make an insurance claim or a claim through the courts for the reported damage to the floor coverings. We have, however, assessed the landlord’s response when the resident reported the damage.
47. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says: “We ask that residents remove, and put back (after works are complete), all personal belongings or fittings which would get in the way or hinder works being carried out. This includes laminated flooring or carpets if owned by the resident”. It goes on to say: “We can help with the movement of personal belongings and furniture if needed but are not liable for any damage or issues that may arise from this”.
48. On 20 October 2022, the contractor asked the resident to sign a disclaimer so it could remove the resident’s floor covering to check for a leak underneath the covering. The landlord’s policy says that residents must remove flooring to allow the landlord to carry out repairs. It adds that it is not responsible for any damage caused if it helps to remove floor coverings. Therefore, the contractor acted appropriately in line with the landlord’s policy by asking the resident to agree that it would not be responsible for damage if it removed the floor covering to check for a leak.
49. The landlord’s notes said that the contractor offered to make the floorboards safe after it had lifted them to inspect underneath. However, the notes say that the resident refused the offer to make them safe. It was reasonable for the contractor to offer to make the floorboards safe as the resident had small children and therefore it was important to ensure that any disturbed floorboards were safe.
50. As part of her stage 2 complaint, the resident said the contractors had lifted the flooring to access a possible leak underneath. The landlord said in its stage 2 reply that its compensation policy did not allow it to compensate for the renewal or replacement of flooring. The landlord’s statement was appropriate as its compensation policy says: “…we would not award compensation for the removal of floor coverings (such as laminate or ceramic tiles) that we have not fitted”.
51. The landlord also said in its stage 2 reply that the resident should either claim for any damage through her own contents insurance or she could claim through the landlord’s liability insurance, for which it gave her the contact details. As the resident was seeking compensation for the reported damage to her floor covering and the landlord’s compensation policy did not allow it to compensate her for the damage, it was reasonable that it had signposted her to make a liability claim if she wished to do so. This would enable the landlord’s insurers to assess whether it was liable to pay for any damage.
52. Overall, we have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to her floor coverings because:
- The contractor decided it was necessary to remove the floor covering to check underneath for a possible leak.
- The contractor advised the resident clearly beforehand that neither the contractor nor the landlord would be liable for any damage to the floor covering.
- The landlord appropriately advised the resident that it could not compensate her for the reported damage to the floor covering and gave her details of its liability insurer so she could make a claim if she wished to do so.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
53. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages: stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt and responded to within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days of the escalation request and responses are sent within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. At both stages of the process, the timescale for responding may be extended as long as the landlord provides an explanation to the resident and a timeframe for when it will send the response. The extension should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
54. In assessing the landlord’s complaint handling we have found the following failings:
- The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint on 25 August 2022 but did not send its stage 1 reply until 20 February 2023, which was significantly longer than the 10-working day timescale in its policy.
- The landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2, despite the resident asking it to do so in March 2023.
- The landlord did not log a new complaint or escalate the resident’s existing complaint in November 2023, despite being asked to do so on 23 November 2023.
- The landlord sent a further stage 1 reply on 3 January 2024 but did not then escalate the complaint to stage 2, even though the resident requested this on various occasions in January and February 2024.
- The landlord initially acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 18 March 2024 but did not send its stage 2 response until 12 June 2024, which was 59 working days after acknowledging the complaint. Although the landlord wrote to the resident on 14 and 28 May 2024 to extend the deadline, the overall time taken was still inappropriate.
55. The landlord used its stage 2 response to apologise for its complaint handling failings and offered compensation of £300. The amount offered was higher than the maximum sum stipulated in its compensation policy for complaint handling failures where there has been an extensive failure to follow the complaints policy or procedure. We consider the landlord’s decision to exceed the maximum award in its policy to have been appropriate given the significant failings we identified. These failings hampered the resident’s ability to pursue her complaints and caused her significant additional time, trouble and inconvenience.
56. In our view, the landlord’s apology and its offer of £300 was fair and proportionate to put things right in terms of the complaint handling failings. Therefore, we have made a finding of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
Learning
57. The landlord and the contractor attended the property on several occasions to inspect the heating and hot water system and the related pipework. The landlord should consider whether a single joint visit with the contractor might have been beneficial to identify the required works at an early stage.
Communication
58. The landlord was not proactive with its communications and this meant that the resident often had to chase the landlord for updates. The landlord’s complaint handling was poor as it did not follow its complaints policy or our Complaint Handling Code.