Peabody Trust (202427051)

Background

1. The property is a 1-bed flat. The resident experienced a leak into the property and requested compensation for damage to her belongings.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak from above.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord offered reasonable redress in its handling of a leak from above.
5. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord addressed the cause of the leak within an appropriate timeframe.
   2. The landlord failed to provide adequate oversight of the required remedial works.
   3. The landlord offered adequate redress for the management of, and delays linked to, the remedial works.
   4. There were unreasonable delays in the landlord’s complaint responses, but it awarded sufficient redress for its failings.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we’ve not investigated

7. Prior to this complaint, the resident raised a complaint about a leak in May 2024. The landlord managed that complaint separately to this one and it completed the landlord’s internal complaint process in December 2024. As the resident did not bring that case to us for review and noted she had accepted compensation for that complaint, those events will not form part of this investigation.
8. The resident has raised complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate matters which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first through its complaints process. There is no evidence the resident raised the complaint about further leaks. Therefore, we have not investigated those newer issues.

What we have investigated

9. The landlord’s repair policy says that it should attend a routine repair within 28 calendar days. The policy defines a containable leak and non-emergency works as routine repairs.
10. The landlord raised a works order to address the leak on 18 October 2024. It attended and identified and repaired the cause of leak (a fitting on the bath in a neighbouring property) on 30 October 2024. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in this instance as it attended and repaired the diagnosed leak in line with its repair policy.
11. Landlord records show that it took appropriate steps to prevent further leaks from the same property following the visit on 30 October 2024.
12. The leak caused damage to the resident’s bedroom ceiling so required follow on works. Following the repair, the landlord should have scheduled the remedial works, but it did not raise a works order for these until 6 January 2025. The time taken to raise these works was unreasonable and not in line with the timeframes set out in its repair policy. This likely caused distress, inconvenience and uncertainty for the resident on how the landlord would bring her bedroom back to a suitable standard.
13. When the landlord attended to complete the remedial works on 22 January 2025, it identified evidence of further potential leaks and raised an inspection. It completed further works to repair a leak at a neighbouring property 2 days later. This demonstrates a resolution focused approach from the landlord as it ensured it addressed any further cause of water ingress before carrying out the remedial works. The landlord noted the remedial works as completed on 11 February 2025.
14. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord offered a payment of £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused. In its breakdown of the amount, the landlord said this covered 5 months between September 2024 and January 2025. As this complaint took place between October 2024 and February 2025, we have considered that amount in our assessment of its actions.
15. The compensation payment of £300 that it offered for this period was proportionate and in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where a failure adversely affects a resident. Considering the failings identified during late 2024 and into early 2025, and the landlord’s actions to put things right, the Ombudsman finds that it offered reasonable redress.

16. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will log new complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 20 working days. The policy says that it may look to extend these times in some instances, but this should not exceed an additional 10 working days. 
17. The landlord failed to log the resident’s initial complaint from 13 October 2024. Notes show that on 9 December 2024, it identified that it had incorrectly closed that complaint. It was inappropriate for the landlord to close the complaint without a valid reason or without discussing it first with the resident.
18. The failure to manage the resident’s complaint likely contributed to a delay in the raising of a works order for the leak referenced in the complaint. This meant it took 5 days for the landlord to raise the works order (albeit the landlord still completed the repair in an appropriate timescale as explained above).
19. The landlord failed to provide a stage 1 response until 106 working days after the resident first raised the complaint and 66 working days after it realised it closed it in error. These excessive delays were unreasonable, and the landlord did not communicate them to the resident in line with the complaint policy.
20. The landlord first acknowledged a stage 2 escalation on 7 April 2025 but it did not provide a stage 2 response until 33 working days later, following further contact from us. This delay was inappropriate and not in line with the timeframe set out in its complaint policy.
21. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it would not provide compensation for damaged belongings, but may direct residents to its insurers if there is a question of liability. Within her complaints, the resident requested compensation for damaged belongings. At both stages of the complaint, the landlord explained that it would not compensate for her belongings, directed her to claim through its insurer and provided details on how to do so. The landlord therefore acted in line with its policy in addressing the resident’s request for compensation for damaged belongings.
22. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged its failings and offered £250 compensation. Its offer was proportionate and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a case where there have been landlord failings that had an adverse impact on a resident. On this basis, we make a finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Repairs

23. The landlord should have systems and procedures in place to ensure that it is able to provide effective oversight of works.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord should have systems and procedures in place to ensure adequate oversight of any works that may require follow on repairs. It should add detailed notes and findings to provide a clear audit trail.  

Communication

25. The landlord should have systems and procedures in place to ensure adequate management and communication throughout the complaint process. Any delays that mean responses will not be provided on time should be communicated to the resident.