Peabody Trust (202425616)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425616

Peabody Trust

19 September 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The process relating to temporary accommodation.
2. His reports of condensation, damp, and mould.
3. His complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in August 2012. The property is a ground floor flat, consisting of a bedroom, a living room set up as a second bedroom, a kitchen, and a bathroom. The resident lives with his partner and 3 children.
On 2 and 4 January 2024 the resident reported to the landlord:
1. The bathroom and kitchen extractor fans were not working.
2. There was “severe mould” spreading on the walls, causing damage to clothes, furniture, and carpet.
3. An air vent in the living room was blocked.
4. There was a leaking radiator.
The landlord’s repairs service contractor repaired the radiators (on 17 January 2024 and 28 February 2024), repaired the kitchen extractor fan (on 18 January 2024), did a mould wash (on 3 February 2024), and repaired the living room air vent (on 23 February 2024). The bathroom extractor fan was not repaired.
On 18 March 2024 the resident reported that damp and mould had come back in his children’s bedroom, and that the living room air vent was letting in too much cold air.
On 3 June 2024 the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of his reports of condensation, damp, and mould. He said the mould was still spreading despite multiple repairs, and it was affecting his children’s health. His youngest child had asthma. He wanted the landlord to find the cause of the mould. On 5 June 2024 he reported there was mould in the living room as well.
The landlord subsequently instructed a damp specialist contractor to do a survey. This was done on 27 June 2024. The report said:
1. Black mould on the external walls and window reveals of the bedroom and living room was possibly caused by condensation. Due to the extent of the condensation, it was not possible to rule out rising damp to the front wall.
2. Moisture levels in the air were high as there were 5 people living in a 1-bedroom property.
3. A recommendation was made for works to improve insulation on the external walls and improve ventilation.
Works to fit internal wall insulation and a passive dehumidification system were due to start on 13 September 2024 but did not go ahead. The resident wanted to be moved into temporary accommodation for the duration of the works, but the landlord said this was not necessary. It cancelled the works order on the basis that the resident had declined the works.
The resident re-reported the damp and mould on 28 October 2024.
On 31 January 2025 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It said its surveyor did a technical inspection on 10 December 2024, and a damp specialist report was being sought. The temporary accommodation process was expected to start after the end of January 2025 to allow for the works to proceed. It apologised for its delayed response and poor communication. It offered a total of £753 compensation.
On 25 February 2025 the resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2. He said he thought the landlord’s initial decision not to move him into temporary accommodation was incorrect and the compensation offered was not enough.
On 6 June 2025 the landlord carried out a survey as part of the process to approve the resident’s request for a mutual exchange. This did not identify any visible signs of damp or mould.
On 16 June 2025 the landlord issued a stage 2 response, which included the following:
1. It acknowledged complaint handling failures, including delays, and that it had failed to manage the resident’s expectations regarding temporary accommodation.
2. However, it said it was satisfied its contractors responded appropriately and in a timely manner to reported issues.
3. It found no fault in how it had handled the temporary accommodation process.
4. It said the works recommended by the June 2024 survey had not been carried out because the resident declined inspections and works. It said it would arrange a new survey, as the June 2024 survey was outdated.
5. It retracted its earlier offer of £753 compensation, but offered £300 to reflect the identified failures, and the impact on the resident.
The latest evidence received from the landlord showed the resident’s mutual exchange has been approved. Additionally, the resident and his family would be moved into temporary accommodation between 23 July 2025 and 13 August 2025, and the damp works would start on 24 July 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope

This Service considers it reasonable for residents to raise complaints within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months of an issue occurring, and for landlords to respond within appropriate timescales. This is because, with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
In his correspondence, the resident has referred to reports of condensation, damp, mould, and other works carried out by the landlord going back a number of years. The evidence shows that the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of his reports of condensation, damp, and mould on 3 June 2024. Taking this into account, and the availability and reliability of evidence, this investigation has focussed on the period from 3 June 2023 to 16 June 2025, when the stage 2 response was issued.
The resident has also raised concerns about the impact of the reported issues on his family’s health. Although we can consider whether a landlord has acted reasonably in relation to the resident’s reported concerns, we cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s actions may have contributed to or exacerbated any health issues, nor can we calculate or award damages in relation to this. These are legal aspects better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. The resident has the option to seek further legal advice if he wishes to pursue this element of his concerns.

Temporary accommodation process

The landlord’s ‘decants procedure’ says it will move residents during repair or maintenance works where the nature of these would make it impossible for them to live in their home while the works are done. The procedure says that the landlord’s surveyor and, where possible, neighbourhood customer specialist, will visit the property and assesses the condition of the property. They will then develop a scope of works and decide whether to recommend temporarily moving the resident. The decision regarding temporary accommodation will then be approved by a regional property services manager. The procedure also says that where the landlord needs to move residents, it will do it quickly.
The evidence shows that in this case, the landlord did not follow its own decants procedure. Its internal correspondence shows its neighbourhood manager correctly identified that temporary accommodation would need to be recommended by a surveyor and approved by a regional property services manager. However, the 27 June 2024 survey was carried out by a contractor, who was not asked to comment on whether the works could be carried out with the resident in situ. The landlord did not send its own surveyor and neighbourhood customer specialist to visit the property to assess whether it was necessary to arrange temporary accommodation, as required by its procedure. It was therefore unreasonable and without basis for the landlord to tell the resident, on 29 August 2024, that there was no need for temporary accommodation.
Once the works order for the remedial damp and mould works was re-raised on 28 October 2024, especially given the 60-day timescale for the damp works had already passed, the landlord should have promptly arranged a visit by a surveyor and neighbourhood customer specialist to assess whether temporary accommodation was necessary. However, the landlord’s surveyor did not visit until 10 December 2024. There is no evidence of any reasonable explanation for this delay.
Following its inspection, the surveyor identified that temporary accommodation was necessary on 10 December 2024. However, contrary to its policy the landlord did not ensure the resident was offered temporary accommodation quickly or keep him updated. It did not inform him of its decision until its stage 1 response on 31 January 2025, and the move into temporary accommodation still had not taken place by 16 June 2025, when the stage 2 response was issued. There is no evidence of an explanation for this delay.
Considering the landlord’s handling of the temporary accommodation process overall, there was an initial failure to follow its own procedure, followed by a delay in carrying out a survey, a delay in communicating its decision to the resident, and a delay in actually relocating the resident. This caused an unnecessary additional delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This is particularly poor given the resident and his partner had 3 children, and the landlord was aware of the resident’s reports that their health was impacted. As a result, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration in relation to this element of the complaint.
The landlord is ordered to apologise, and pay compensation of £300 for the resident’s inconvenience and distress. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for maladministration where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to fully address the detriment to the resident.

Condensation, damp and mould

The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s responsive repairs policy acknowledges the landlord’s duty to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the walls, plasterwork, roof and ceilings, and to do repairs within a reasonable time of being notified. The policy says it will complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days, and major repairs (including damp works) within 60 calendar days.
The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy acknowledges its duty under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 to ensure its properties are fit for human habitation, which it says includes freedom from damp, and adequate ventilation.
At the time of the events complained about, the landlord worked with contractors to deliver its responsive repairs service. For clarity, this report refers to the landlord’s contractors as ‘contractors’. It should, however, be noted that even when using contractors, the landlord retains its obligations and responsibilities as a landlord. Landlords are ultimately responsible for any failings on the contractor’s part.

Condensation, damp and mould – January 2024 to May 2024

The evidence for the period January to the end of May 2024 shows the landlord’s repairs service contractor carried out some repairs in timely manner, for example the bedroom radiator and kitchen extractor fan repairs were completed within its policy timescale for routine repairs (13 and 14 calendar days, respectively).
However, other repairs were delayed or not done at all, for example:
1. The living room air vent was not repaired until 50 calendar days after it was reported.
2. The bathroom extractor fan was not repaired, despite the resident reporting this twice.
The evidence suggests poor planning and management of repairs contributed to the delays. For example, there were 2 unsuccessful appointments to repair the living room vent before it was repaired at the third appointment. On 30 January 2024 not enough time had been allowed, and 2 operatives were needed, whereas only 1 had been sent. On 2 February 2024 the operatives did not have the necessary tools.
The evidence also suggests issues with the quality of the repairs. For example, the living room air vent was repaired on 23 February 2024, but on 18 March 2024 the resident reported it was letting in too much cold air. On 13 June 2024 the contractor noted the vent hole had been cut too large and the wrong vent had been installed.
While it was appropriate for the repairs contractor to do a mould wash on 3 February 2024 (30 calendar days after the resident reported the mould), this alone was an incomplete response. The contractor noted the mould was caused by condensation, poor ventilation, and objects being close to the walls. However, the evidence suggests the contractor and landlord did not prioritise repairing and/or consider improving the ventilation. There is also no evidence that either appropriately advised the resident about steps to reduce condensation and resultant mould growth.
The evidence suggests a lack of oversight on the part of the landlord, meaning that there was not a co-ordinated and appropriately prioritised response to reports of condensation, damp, mould, and related disrepair. Because of this the cause of the condensation, damp, and mould was not adequately addressed. As a result, despite the 3 February 2024 mould wash, on 18 March 2024 the resident reported damp and mould had come back in his children’s bedroom.
The evidence shows that after the resident’s report on 18 March 2024, the repairs contractor tried to contact him twice by phone to book an appointment (on 19 and 20 March 2024), leaving a voicemail on the second occasion. It then wrote to him on 20 April 2024, saying it had cancelled the repair request, as it had followed its “contact process” and had not heard back from him. The landlord has not provided this Service with evidence of any such “contact process.” Especially as the report was about mould in the children’s bedroom, it would have been best practice for the repairs contractor to try an alternative contact method before closing the repair job, such as text message or email.

Condensation, damp and mould – June 2024 to October 2024

The landlord’s response to the resident’s 3 and 5 June 2024 reports of black mould was initially reasonable. On 6 June 2024 it told the resident it had asked its contractor to investigate the cause of the mould. On the same day the contractor contacted the resident to book an appointment for another mould wash, which the resident declined. While the mould wash alone would not have been a sufficient response, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer this to mitigate the impact of the mould in advance of the investigation. It was beyond the landlord’s control that the resident declined this.
However, the landlord did do not the works recommended by the 27 June 2024 survey within its policy timescale of 60 calendar days. The works to improve insulation on the external walls, and improve ventilation, were due to start on 13 September 2024, which would have been 71 calendar days after the works order was raised on 4 July 2024. However, the works did not go ahead.
On 5 September 2024 the resident did not allow access for removal of the radiators in advance of the works, as the landlord said it would not decant him. The landlord subsequently cancelled the works order in relation to the damp and mould works on 15 October 2024. As with above, this was unreasonable, especially given the resident’s stated concerns about his children’s health. As discussed above, the landlord had not followed its decant procedure in reaching the decision not to offer temporary accommodation, and there is no evidence took any further steps to agree access with the resident after he initially declined works on 5 September 2024.
Additionally, the landlord’s communication with the resident during this period was poor. For example, following the 27 June 2024 survey, it did not tell the resident about the findings and next steps until 31 July 2024, more than a month later, when it told the resident it had instructed its repairs contractor to proceed with works.

Condensation, damp and mould – November 2024 to June 2025

Following the resident’s re-report of damp and mould on 28 October 2024, the evidence suggests the landlord took reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the mould on the resident and his family. It made an appointment for a mould wash on 8 November 2024, but the resident cancelled this and later said he did not want any mould treatment until it had decanted them and done the substantive works. The resident later agreed to mould washes, which were done on 21 February 2025 and 14 March 2025. The surveyor noted there was no evidence of mould or damp during the mutual exchange survey on 6 June 2025, so these appear to have been effective.
However, the landlord did not act with urgency to plan and carry out the substantive works to improve insulation on the external walls and improve ventilation. There was an apparent lack of adequate oversight and co-ordination of the process. At a meeting between the landlord, the resident and his local councillor on 23 May 2025, the newly allocated surveyor had not seen either of 2 surveys already carried out, and did not know what works had been done, and what was outstanding. The landlord’s representative was not able to provide a timescale for the works.
The works had still not been completed by the time of the stage 2 response, on 16 June 2025. This was over 11 months since the works order was first raised. There is no evidence of any reasonable explanation for such a long delay.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor overall. It did not provide timely information, and the resident and his local councillor had to chase it for updates. The evidence shows it kept pushing back the dates for works, with no reasonable explanation for this. For example, in its 31 January 2025 stage 1 response it said the decant process would begin after the end of January 2025. Then on 6 March 2025 it said it anticipated it would decant the resident and his family from 24 March 2025 until 28 April 2025, while it carried out the works. As a result, the resident experienced uncertainty and frustration.

Condensation, damp and mould – Conclusions

Considering the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of condensation, damp and mould overall, numerous failings have been identified, including:
1. Some repairs were delayed (e.g. living room air vent) or not done at all (e.g. bathroom extractor fan).
2. There was poor planning and management of repairs (e.g. attending without the correct tools), which contributed to the above.
3. Poor quality of some repairs (e.g. living room air vent, kitchen extractor fan).
4. The landlord was not proactive in identifying the cause of the condensation, damp and mould.
5. It did not act with an appropriate degree of urgency to complete the recommended remedial works.
6. Its communication with the resident was poor.
7. The evidence suggests there was no one person or team with oversight and overall responsibility for co-ordination and planning.
As a result of the landlord’s failings, the resident and his family experienced inconvenience, distress, and reduced enjoyment of their home for over 17 months. The landlord’s response was particularly concerning given it knew the resident and his partner have 3 children, and there were reported health concerns in relation to the mould. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of maladministration. The landlord is ordered to apologise, carry out a strategic case review, and pay compensation of £1,000 for the resident’s inconvenience and distress. The compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for maladministration where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident, and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy defined a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction… about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, our employees or those acting on our behalf.” It said it would always accept a complaint unless there was a fair and valid reason not to.
The policy said the landlord would log and acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 5 working days. It would provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement. If it needed more time, it would provide an explanation to the resident with a clear timeframe for when the response would be received. This would be more than an extra 10 days without good reason. If it needed more than 10 extra days, it would provide contact details for the Housing Ombudsman Service.
The policy also said the landlord would log and acknowledge complaints at stage 2 within 5 working days of the escalation request. It would provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledgement. If it needed more time, it would provide an explanation with a clear timeframe for when the response would be received. This would not be more than an extra 20 days without good reason. If it needed more than 20 extra days, it would provide contact details for this Service.
The policy was in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service Complaints Handling Code (the Code), which was compulsory for landlords from April 2024. The Code says, “it is not appropriate to have extra named stages (such as ‘stage 0’ or ‘informal complaint’) as this causes unnecessary confusion.” It also says, “a complaint must be raised when the resident expresses dissatisfaction with the response to their service request, even if the handling of the service request remains ongoing”. The Code says good complaint handling means landlords can put things right for residents when they have gone wrong, and can develop and improve their services
The landlord did not follow its complaints policy or the Code in the way it handled the resident’s complaint. It did not log and acknowledge a stage 1 complaint soon enough, and the resident and his local councillor had to complain multiple times before this was done. This was unreasonable and made it difficult for the resident to access the complaints process.
It should have logged a stage 1 complaint following the resident’s 3 June 2024 expression of dissatisfaction. Instead, it told him on 5 June 2024 it had opened a service recovery case for damp and mould, and that he could ask for a complaint to be raised if he was dissatisfied with the service under this case. This approach was contrary to its policy and ultimately delayed him receiving a formal response.
The resident completed a complaint webform on the landlord’s website on 2 July 2024. However, on the same day, the landlord told him it would not “put this through our complaints procedure at this time as repairs are ongoing.” This was also unreasonable and not in line with its policy or the Code.
Following correspondence from the resident’s local councillor, on 30 July 2024, and another complaint webform completed by the resident on 8 September 2024, the landlord told the resident, on 18 September 2024, it had raised a complaint at stage 1. This was 77 working days after his first expression of dissatisfaction, far in excess of its policy timeframe.
The stage 1 response was provided on 31 January 2025, 94 working days after acknowledgement and 171 working days after the initial complaint. This was very late. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to say it needed more time or provided him with the details for this Service, a further departure from its policy.
The landlord did apologise for the delay within the stage 1 response itself. It also apologised for distress caused by delays in relation to the damp and mould works. This was appropriate.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 25 February 2025. However, the landlord did not log and acknowledge this until 13 June 2025, after this Service had contacted it on 11 June 2025. This was 75 working days after the request to escalate, which was far too late.
The stage 2 response was provided on 16 June 2025, 76 working days after the request to escalate, however it appropriately acknowledged there had been delays to complaint handling within the response.
However, the stage 2 response, in effect, reversed the findings at stage 1. The landlord did not identify where its handling of the resident’s reports of condensation, damp and mould, and of the decant process, had gone wrong. It said it was satisfied that our contractors responded appropriately and in a timely manner to reported issues, and it found evidence of service failure in how repairs were handled. It said it “did not uphold” the offer of £753 compensation made at Stage 1, but offered £300.00 instead. This caused confusion. It was also unreasonable that it sought to place responsibility on the resident for its failure to carry out damp and mould works, by saying this was because the resident had declined inspections and works. The landlord therefore missed the opportunity to use its stage 2 response to acknowledge and put right its failings and provide reasonable and proportionate redress.
Considering the landlord’s complaint handling overall, the complaint process was difficult for the resident to access, and there were long delays. The landlord did not take responsibility for its failings. As a result, the complaints process did not enable quick and successful resolution of the matters complained about, and the resident expended time and trouble pursuing the complaint. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to apologise and pay compensation of £150 for the resident’s time and trouble.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the temporary accommodation process.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of condensation, damp, and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior officer of the landlord, at minimum director level, must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures, having regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. The landlord must directly pay the resident compensation of £1,450 (inclusive of the £300 offered at stage 2), broken down as follows:
  1. £300 for the resident’s inconvenience and distress as a result of its handling of the temporary accommodation process.
  2. £1,000 for the resident’s inconvenience and distress as a result of its handling of reports of condensation, damp, and mould.
  3. £150 for the resident’s time and trouble as a result of its poor complaint handling.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, relevant staff must undertake the landlord training on The Complaint Handling Code, Dispute Resolution, and Applying Dispute Resolution from our Centre for Learning (https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/centre-for-learning/key-topics/complaint-handling/).
The landlord must carry out a strategic case review to identify the causes of the failures in this case and identify learning and service improvement points. The review should be undertaken by a manager outside of the services involved in the failings included in this report and incorporate its own held records as well as taking into account this report. The report must also be shared with the landlord’s Governance Body. Specific attention should be given to ensuring:
1. Staff awareness and compliance with decants procedure.
2. Repairs are completed within policy timeframes.
3. Adequate planning and management of repairs to avoid wasted appointments.
4. Repairs are completed to an adequate standard.
5. Reasonable attempts to contact residents are made, via a variety of methods, before repair requests are cancelled.
6. Prompt and proactive investigation and identification of the root cause of condensation, damp and mould.
7. Remedial works are completed within a timeframe appropriate to the assessed risk, taking into account household vulnerabilities as well as the extent of the condensation, damp and mould.
8. Oversight of condensation, damp and mould cases to allow effective co-ordination and planning.
9. Outcomes of inspections, landlord decisions, and planned actions are promptly communicated to residents
10. There are no barriers to residents accessing the complaints process.
11. Complaints policy timeframes are met.
12. The complaints process is used to enable remedy and redress.
The landlord must share a written report of the review of the case review, including an action plan for service improvements, with dates, with the resident and this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report. Given potential agenda pressures, the report must be shared with its Governance Board within the longer timeframe of 4 months of the date of this report.