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

Take part in the consultation

Peabody Trust (202424687)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424687

Peabody Trust

29 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 reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs.
    2. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom basement flat in a converted 4 storey house. She lives with her 3 children. The landlord has said it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the household. However, she told it that one of her children has autism, another has ADHD and one was asthmatic during the complaint. She has added that she has asthma, eczema, and hernias which she made the landlord aware of.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould in the property, involving a vent in her son’s bedroom, at least as early as December 2022. The landlord’s repair records from 13 October 2023 show that it raised work to apply a mould wash and redecorate multiple rooms in the property, fit a new air vent, and scrape back defective external wall rendering following an inspection.
  3. On 8 November 2023, the resident raised a complaint as a surveyor visited a month prior about her ongoing reports of damp and mould, and it had not provided an update. She said that there was damp in all rooms and she wanted it to complete repairs. As the work was excessive, she felt the best outcome was to rehouse her as she was currently overcrowded. She also set out the household vulnerabilities.
  4. Following a visit inFebruary 2024, the landlord’s records indicate that there was “mould everywhere” caused by problems with the building above the flat. It said that the damp was not due to ventilation issues. It recommended a surveyor visit to decide what needed to be done.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint on 1 May 2024 due to a lack of contact about the work needed to the property despite visits in 2023, and in February 2024. She wanted it to provide an itinerary for the work to the property, and planned work to the building.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response on 21 May 2024, the landlord:
    1. Recognised that it raised a case to assess the damp and mould on 25 January 2024 but there were 2 cancelled appointments with no explanation which was poor customer service. It said the survey took place on 6 February 2024 and it raised another survey case on 16 February 2024 in error. Since the survey, it had not communicated about what the issues were or what it would do. It apologised for this failing.
    2. Said it asked the surveyor and their manager what happened, why it had not raised work, and why they had not updated her. It would also provide feedback to the surveying team to discuss how it could improve its service in future. Once it had information, it would contact her.
    3. Confirmed that it would continue to monitor the work and communicate with her. It offered £445 compensation comprised of £100 for previous poor complaint handling, £20 for 2 missed appointments, £75 for its service failure over 3 months, and £250 toward her time, trouble, and inconvenience both in chasing the surveyor, and taking into account her son’s vulnerabilities.
  7. Between May 2024 and May 2025:
    1. The landlord said it had identified some communal work needed on 23 May  which it was in the process of arranging. It was expecting a quote for work to the internal parts of the property by the end of the following week. It said it would provide a full list of work once confirmed.
    2. On 28 May, following her communication about the level of compensation, it increased its n offer by £100 for her time and trouble, and provided details on how she could make a liability claim for damage to belongings.
    3. On 8 July, the resident said that contractors had turned up without notice to carry out work to the garden and utility cupboard. She was unhappy it had not informed her, and had not provided details of any work. She added that the lack of notice impacted her autistic son.
    4. On 3 August, the resident said that the external work was taking place sporadically. Contractors had not attended for a month and then turned up unannounced on a Saturday. She asked it to provide a detailed itinerary for the work and dates so that she and her family were prepared as the lack of information negatively impacted her autistic child. She detailed the impact the unexpected work had.
    5. On 8 September, the landlord said that the external work was due to be completed that week but it had asked for updates. On 10 September, the resident said that the staff member who had tried to update her had seemingly left the organisation. She asked who would take ownership over the repairs that remained unresolved.
    6. On 25 September, the resident asked that her complaint was moved to the highest level. She said that it had not communicated with her and she did not have information about how it would resolve the damp and mould in her property. She said it visited on 28 August but it still had not provided a plan for the works. She needed this to prepare her autistic son to avoid impacting his mental state. She was concerned about the impact of the visible damp and mould on her family’s health and wanted it to rehouse her as the property was overcrowded. She said it had told her the cost of the work was high and did not feel this was a reasonable excuse for the lack of action.
    7. She resent her complaint on 12 October due to a lack of response. On 22 October, she reported that the damp was worse when it rained. She pursued an update again on 30 October, and 6 and 13 November. She continued to pursue her concerns directly and via her MP in November. On 28 November, the landlord apologised and provided information about her housing options.
    8. On 10 December, the landlord said it would temporarily move the resident while it completed the works. The resident asked how this process worked and was concerned about the level of disruption associated with moving
    9. In January 2025, the resident reported that she had not had any further information about the works or temporary move since December. The landlord continued to chase updates from the surveyor approximately 7 times in January and February 2025.
    10. The landlord’s records from 19 February indicate that it had offered the resident a 2 bedroom decant property but that she had asked for 4 bedrooms due to her children’s needs. It said it would need to offer a like-for-like property. In its communication to the MP on the same day, it explained the difficulty it had in offering a more permanent option, and said that once it agreed the decant, it would be able to provide a plan for the works. Following this, it said it could offer £350 per week should the resident want to find her own temporary accommodation.
    11. The landlord continued to chase works and updates on the decant internally in March. Following contact from the resident, we asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 complaint response.
  8. In its stage 2 complaint response on 2 May 2025, the landlord:
    1. Apologised for the length of time taken to complete repairs, and its lack of communication throughout. It  explained that following the survey on 6 February 2024, it found that the cause of damp was internal condensation, and structural issues within the building. It was initially made aware of general issues in the block in March 2024. It received reports of missing roof tiles and leaks from overflow pipes that caused damp in the main structure of the building. The air vents that helped control air flow around the building were also damaged.
    2. Said it found the external render was compromised and required extensive work to strip back the damaged rendering, and treat the walls. The programme to address this took place over the summer and winter of 2024. Some of the work was dependent on a specialist contractor’s resources and it appreciated this took a while to complete. It recognised that the resident needed to regularly contact it about the progress of these works and when work to her own property would take place. It apologised and said it should have maintained regular contact.
    3. Found that in December 2024, its surveyor contacted her and recognised that, due to her personal circumstances, it would need to consider where it could temporarily house her and her family whilst it carried out the repairs. It had regularly chased what was happening but it failed to keep her updated again, and appreciated the frustration caused.
    4. Recognised that the resident wanted to be permanently moved to a 4 bedroom property. It said it had a very limited number of 4 bedroom properties which rarely became available. In relation to the decant, it was only able to offer a property that was the same size as the one she had. It asked her to communicate with a staff member about arranging a 2 bedroom decant. It appreciated that she would be disappointed that it could not offer a 4 bedroom property but said that it needed to complete the repairs, so asked that she made contact to arrange this as soon as possible.
    5. Offered an additional £1,250 in recognition of the significant time that had passed since its initial offer. This was comprised of £1,000 for her time, trouble and inconvenience related to the extensive disruption, delays and poor communication, and £250 for its complaint handling failures.

Events following the complaint

  1. The resident referred her complaint to us to investigate as she was unhappy the landlord had not taken steps to resolve the mould in the property or communicated effectively. She noted the impact this had on her and her family’s health. She added that moving temporarily was not an option due to the impact of change on her autistic son. She wanted the landlord to move her to a 4 bedroom property.
  2. In August 2025, the resident said she did not have a plan for the work needed, and she did not believe she had the correct housing priority banding. She explained that while she needed to be rehoused, she required clear information about the work needed and the decant property in order to make an informed decision about how to proceed in view of her son’s autism.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said this situation has impacted her, and her family’s, health. It is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing, or award damages in the same way a court might via a personal injury claim. We have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused, and whether the landlord took adequate steps to consider household vulnerabilities.
  2. Part of the resident’s complaint also relates to damage to personal belongings. As above, it is not our role to determine liability or award damages. The landlord provided details of how the resident could raise a claim via its insurance team and she may wish to pursue this, if she has not already done so.
  3. The resident has also raised concern that her current property is overcrowded, and has asked that the landlord move her to a 4 bedroom property. She has provided medical evidence. It is beyond our remit to order the landlord to move the resident to a larger property. This is dependent on the availability of properties and the landlord’s waiting lists. In addition, decisions about priority banding for the local authority’s housing register are made by the local authority, not the landlord.
  4. We note that the resident has raised a new complaint regarding being rehoused and this will not form part of our investigation. We will, however, consider the landlord’s communication about the proposed temporary move and repairs.

  Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, including roofs, external walls, internal walls and ceilings, and plasterwork. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it would attend emergency repairs within 2 to 24 hours. It would complete non-urgent repairs within 28 days, and specialist work within 60 working days. Specialist work includes work that may be complex and require a technical diagnosis and management.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it takes a proactive approach. It explains that it has clear procedures and would investigate reports of damp and mould and complete any necessary repairs to help tackle the issue. It further states that where work required is excessive, it may temporarily move residents.
  3. Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, the landlord must ensure the dwelling is fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy. It must also ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. The Decent Homes Standard says it should ensure that its properties are free of category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould is listed as a potential category 1 hazard.
  4. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1, it aims to acknowledge and respond to the complaint within 15 working days. At stage 2, it aims to acknowledge and respond to the complaint within 25 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs

  1. The resident reported damp and mould at least as early as December 2022. She spent considerable time and trouble asking the landlord to provide information about the work needed to the property from November 2023. There were significant delays in progressing work to address damp and mould which remain unresolved to date.
  2. Within its complaint responses, the landlord recognised that it had not communicated effectively and there were also significant delays in progressing work. It offered £1,445 compensation overall for her time and trouble, and inconvenience. While the landlord’s offer goes some way to recognise the impact of its failings on the resident, we have found maladministration in its handling of her reports and the repairs needed.

Diagnosis, records and repairs

  1. Following a report of damp and mould, we would expect to see evidence that the landlord completed a damp assessment, using professional tools such as a moisture meter. This is to establish the underlying cause of the problems experienced within a property and the exact location of any defects which may contribute to the spread of damp. It should assess all possible causes of damp, including leaks, rising damp, penetrating damp, and condensation, to gain a clear understanding of the problem and offer a relevant resolution.
  2. As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. It has provided limited documentary evidence of its inspections or surveys to show the extent or cause of the damp and mould in the property or the building, and has not provided clear information about the remedial work needed. The landlord has not demonstrated that it had a clear understanding of the issues affecting the property.
  3. We have not seen evidence to confirm that the landlord completed any works to the internal parts of the property, aside from some around a meter cupboard as part of planned works from July 2024. Despite raising jobs to complete a mould wash, redecorate, replace a vent, and remove defective rendering in October 2023, there is no other record of the related inspection, and it is of concern that work did not progress.
  4. Despite a contractor’s report that there was “mould everywhere” on 15 February 2024, the landlord has not demonstrated that it completed any repairs to the internal parts of the property. It was aware of the potentially significant hazard to the resident and her family, and of medical conditions such as asthma, but did not complete any reactive or interim measures while it continued to investigate and diagnose the cause of the problem.
  5. The landlord began to complete external work to the rendering, and some work to the internal parts of the building from around 8 July 2024. However, it has not provided clear evidence of the extent of the work, or reports to show it determined that these steps would resolve the damp and mould. While it recognised that the planned works took some time due to the availability of specialised contractors, it failed to demonstrate that it took steps to address the damp inside the property despite saying that it would address this in its communication in May 2024.
  6. There is a lack of evidence to support that the landlord investigated whether the external works had alleviated the mould throughout the resident’s property. There is reference to an August 2024 inspection but there is no evidence that it sought to progress work or act on the resident’s reports about the worsening condition of the property between September and November 2024.
  7. In its communication to her MP in December 2024, the landlord explained that the required work would take 4 to 6 weeks, and it would need to dry-line some walls and ensure it removed all mould. In February 2025, it said that once the resident was decanted, it would provide a plan for the work. It is of concern that its internal communication from 26 June 2025 indicates that it did not have a record to show what work it needed to complete in the property. It is unreasonable that the landlord decided not to scope the work required until the resident was decanted.
  8. The lack of clarity about the work needed was evidently distressing and frustrating for the resident. Despite her request that it provided an itinerary or schedule of work at least as early as November 2023, and on multiple occasions following this, the landlord did not do so. Given the resident’s reports about the importance of her family having a clear plan to minimise the impact on her autistic child’s mental state, It was unreasonable to expect the resident’s family to move temporarily without clear explanation as to what work it would be doing. We recognise that the scope of work could change once started, but it is unclear how the landlord could confirm that the work would take 4 to 6 weeks and that it would successfully stop damp and mould growth without a plan in place.
  9. The landlord maintains that the internal work has not gone ahead as the resident refused to be decanted. While this may be the case, it has failed to demonstrate that it fully considered the household vulnerabilities and took all suitable measures to plan the work and prepare the family to avoid any unnecessary or avoidable distress. It is understandable that the resident would require clear information about both the work, and decant, given that she has vulnerable children. It is unreasonable that the landlord was unable to offer this.

Communication

  1. The landlord has not disputed that it failed to communicate effectively with the resident which led to her spending significant time and trouble pursuing a resolution. While recognising its poor communication within its stage 1 complaint response on 21 May 2024, it has not demonstrated that it effectively learnt from this to avoid unnecessary delays and inconvenience, and its poor communication continued.
  2. The landlord’s records show that its complaints team attempted to improve its communication with the resident following the stage 1 response on 21 May 2024. It chased work with its surveying team on at least 9 occasions between May and August 2024, and apologised to the resident when it was not able to provide any meaningful updates. It is evident that a lack of response from the surveying team, despite internal escalations to management, significantly contributed to the delays, and time and trouble spent by the resident, and its own staff. We note that this issue continued and there was a continued lack of response from the surveying team into 2025.
  3. The landlord also failed to communicate about the communal works. Given the ongoing complaint, it would have been appropriate for it to have explained what the works were, and how it expected the work to alleviate the damp and mould in the property, but there is no evidence to show it did so which is a failing.  Despite being aware of the impact of a lack of notice, or plan of works, on the resident and her family, the landlord has not demonstrated that it considered her comments or adjusted its approach to avoid further distress or inconvenience.
  4. The resident needed to pursue a resolution via us and her MP from September 2024 due to a lack of response to her contact. While the landlord took steps to respond to the resident’s MP in December 2024 and February 2025, it said that its surveyor was in regular contact with the resident, which was not the case.

Offer of temporary accommodation

  1. The landlord has explained that the work to the internal parts of the property have not progressed as the resident has refused its offer of temporary accommodation, and wants a 4 bedroom property due to overcrowding.
  2. The resident has confirmed that she wanted the landlord to move her to a 4 bedroom property permanently in view of the overcrowding and the disruption that moving multiple times would cause. Rehousing can take a significant amount of time due to a lack of available properties and long waiting lists. The landlord acted reasonably by explaining to the MP in February 2025 that it did not have a stock of empty properties, that its transfer list was currently closed, and the majority of its stock was let through the local authority.
  3. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer a like-for-like 2 bedroom property on a temporary basis to be able to complete the work to address significant damp and mould in the property. It has explained that it did not own the temporary accommodation and was not able to offer this permanently which was reasonable.
  4. However, despite the resident asking for additional information about the process from December 2024, we have not seen evidence to show that the landlord responded to her specific concerns about what facilities it would offer, or her comments that she needed information to prepare her autistic son. The lack of clear communication, alongside the lack of information about the work needed, was likely to have added to the resident’s frustration, and contributed to ongoing delays.
  5. It is understandable that the resident may need a greater level of detail and consideration in view of the household vulnerabilities and we have not seen evidence to show that the landlord understood this. There is nothing to show that it provided clarity or managed expectations in response to these concerns, and it failed to suitably address this within its stage 2 complaint response in May 2025.

Summary

  1. There were numerous failings by the landlord in their handling of the reports of damp and mould in the property.  This amounts to maladministration for the reasons set out above. The landlord’s offer of £1,445 compensation for her time, trouble, and inconvenience goes some way to recognise its failings.
  2. While the landlord recognised significant failings in its complaint responses, it has still not demonstrated that it has a clear understanding of the work needed. This is unreasonable given the overall timeframe of the resident’s reports. It did not suitably consider the household vulnerabilities when communicating with the resident, completing repairs, or arranging temporary accommodation. It also failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the decant process or suitably considered the information the resident may need to make an informed decision about the next steps in view of her son’s autism.
  3. We have made several orders below for the landlord to act on so that the resident can make an informed decision on how she wishes to proceed. In consideration of the compensation already offered, alongside our remedies guidance, we have also ordered the landlord to pay an additional £555 compensation to bring the total offer to £2,000. This is in recognition of the significant impact on the resident over an extended period of time as a result of the landlord’s failings.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. There were significant delays and failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. She initially raised a complaint on 8 November 2023. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have treated this formally in view of her dissatisfaction with its service. It was a failing that it did not do so.
  2. The resident asked the landlord to consider the complaint formally on 1 May 2024. It sent its stage 1 complaint response on 21 May 2024. This was within 13 working days which is a reasonable overall timescale. While it did not fully explain its failings, it offered £100 for its previous poor complaint handling. At the time, this was proportionate to put right its failure to address her initial complaint in November 2023.
  3. Following the resident’s request on 22 May 2024, the landlord reviewed the compensation outside of its complaints on 28 May 2024. This was within a reasonable timeframe and shows that it was resolution focused.
  4. The resident initially referenced a stage 2 complaint on 10 September 2024, and asked the landlord to progress the complaint to the “highest level” on 25 September 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge this appropriately. It sent a complaint response on 2 April 2025, around 6 months later, significantly outside of its set timescales for handling complaints at stage 2. It is evident that the resident spent considerable time and trouble pursuing the repairs and a complaint response during this time, including directly, via her MP, and through our intervention.
  5. The landlord acted reasonably by recognising the extensive failure to follow its complaints process when handling the complaint at stage 2, and it offered £250 compensation. The landlord’s overall offer of £350 compensation for the time and trouble caused by delays in its complaint handling is in line with our remedies guidance and proportionate in view of the impact on the resident. As such, we have found that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress for its handling of the complaint, which puts right the impact of its failings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to investigation, for its handling of the complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in our report.
    2. Pay the resident £2,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble she experienced due to its poor handling of her reports of damp and mould. This includes its previous offers amounting to £1,445 made during the complaints process. This should be paid directly to the resident.
    3. Contact the resident to discuss any household vulnerabilities and reasonable adjustments required. It should evidence that it has updated its records to ensure that these are appropriately recorded on its systems.
    4. Complete a damp and mould survey of the property, using appropriate tools, to gain an up to date diagnosis of the issues, and assess the remedial actions needed. It should instruct a surveyor who has not previously inspected the property to complete this in view of the failings we have identified.
  2. Following this, and within 6 weeks, the landlord must contact the resident to explain all aspects of the decant process and any reasonable adjustments that the resident may require to progress a temporary move to a 2 bedroom property in view of the impact she says this will have on her autistic son.
  3. Within 8 weeks, the landlord must write to the resident so that she can make an informed decision on how to proceed. It should set out:
    1. The outcome of the survey (and surveyor’s report), details of the work needed to each room of the property, and how long it expects the work to take once started.
    2. Whether it can progress works while the resident is living in the property and the likely level of disruption.
    3. Its position regarding a temporary move or contribution toward the cost of temporary accommodation, including removals or storage of items. It should also confirm any adjustments it agrees to so that the family can suitably prepare for a temporary move.
  4. Within 12 weeks, the landlord must complete a management review of this case to identify points of learning and changes it can implement to prevent similar failings in future. At a minimum, it should set out:
    1. Its position on the internal communication failures and any actions it will take to ensure that complaints staff are able to access relevant information when responding to or monitoring complaint actions.
    2. Its position regarding its handling of the resident’s reports about the household vulnerabilities and how it would seek to prevent similar failings in the future.
  5. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance within these timescales.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord pays the resident £350 as previously offered within its complaint responses for its complaint handling, if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis that this is paid.