Peabody Trust (202427526)

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is an upstairs flat in a block containing 3 properties. The landlord is the freeholder of the block.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of external repairs.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of external repairs.
5. The landlord made an offer which provides reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.
6. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of external repairs

7. The replacement of the resident’s roof tiles took significantly longer than was reasonable in the circumstances.
8. There is no evidence that the repairs to the resident’s windows and outside steps were progressed as promised. For example, surveys that were said to be required were not completed and the repairs remain outstanding.

The landlord’s complaint handling

9. There were significant delays in the landlord’s complaint handling; however, it has taken appropriate steps to put things right and learn from outcomes.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

10. The landlord categorised the repairs as ‘programmed’ or ‘specialist’ works. This was appropriate as the works fit the description for these repairs under its responsive repairs policy. The policy states that it aims to complete such repairs within 60 calendar days. It took the landlord 77 days to complete all of the required inspections. The evidence shows that the landlord was also dealing with several other repairs to the block which were reported on the same day, requiring several different contractors. In view of what is reasonable in the circumstances, this short initial delay was a minor failing.
11. It was reasonable that the landlord made the decision on 23 May 2023 to approach all of the repairs together, to avoid repeating work surrounding the likely need for a section 20 consultation process. However, there is no evidence that the landlord took any further steps to progress the repairs or the section 20 process until 16 October 2023. There is evidence that internal emails were sent in July 2023 to request an update on the repairs, following the resident’s complaint. However, these queries failed to result in any further progress. The reasons for this are unclear and this unexplained delay was a failing.
12. From 16 October 2023 it took the landlord a further 164 days until it replaced the roof tiles on 28 March 2024; this totalled 388 days from when the repair was first reported. It was reasonable that this repair was not completed within the 60-day timescale, because a section 20 consultation process and the erection of scaffolding was required, causing reasonable delays. However, the total time taken was still significantly beyond what would have been reasonable in the circumstances. There is no evidence to suggest that this amount of delay was reasonable.
13. The landlord offered a total of £200 compensation during the complaints process. It considered the resident’s time and trouble separately as part of its complaint handling. For the distress and inconvenience alone, the amount offered was reasonable for the delay in completing the roof repair and in line with our remedies guidance. This is because the outstanding repair did not have any impact on the resident’s day to day usage or enjoyment of the property, though the landlord’s handling of the repair and the delays likely did cause frustration, distress, and inconvenience.
14. However, there is no evidence the repairs to the window frames and the outside steps were completed. The evidence shows that these were inspected but there is no evidence that the further surveys that were deemed necessary were done. In both of the landlord’s complaint responses, it told the resident it would ‘make a decision’ about how the repairs would be approached after it had completed a further survey. For example, suggesting that it may then include the window repairs in its ‘cyclical maintenance schedule’. However, it did not tell the resident when that would be. There is no evidence that the survey referred to took place. Overall, there is no evidence that either of these repairs were progressed after being referred to the surveying team in May 2023.
15. The landlord did not explicitly reference the repairs to the steps after its stage 1 response of 7 November 2023, when it told the resident to expect further progress and updates. As a result, the reason why this repair remains incomplete is unexplained. This was a failing.
16. The landlord’s communication with the resident around the repairs was not handled as promised by the landlord in its complaint responses. In both of its complaint responses it told the resident its surveying team would keep the resident updated, however this did not happen. There is no evidence of the landlord communicating proactively with the resident outside of the complaints process, despite its promise to do so.
17. The evidence shows the resident repeatedly had to contact the landlord to request updates and information, which were often not forthcoming. It is not unreasonable that the landlord could not provide definitive timescales to complete some of these repairs, due to the legal processes that were required. However, the landlord could have given the resident a timescale on when the next update would be provided, or when the next step to progress the repairs would be taken.
18. Our Spotlight Report on Repairs and Maintenance – Repairing Trust, was published in May 2025. It states that effective communication is vital and that poor communication leaves residents uninformed. In this case the evidence shows that the landlord’s communication failings caused unnecessary frustration, distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble to the resident. Had the landlord communicated effectively with the resident as described in the Spotlight Report, it may have avoided some of this impact.
19. In conclusion, the landlord’s unreasonable delays in replacing the roof tiles, its failure to take the progress the remaining 2 repairs, and its unsatisfactory communication with the resident, means that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of external repairs.
20. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has completed a survey of the 2 outstanding repairs. It must then provide evidence that it has written to the resident to explain how and when the repairs will be completed.
21. The repairs have remained outstanding for over 2 and a half years at the time of this determination. The landlord must take further steps to put things right. Although there is no evidence that these incomplete repairs impacted the resident’s usage or enjoyment of the property, it is likely that the landlord’s failure to progress them has caused frustration, disappointment, distress, and inconvenience. We have not considered any time and trouble gone to by the resident after the stage 2 response, because we do not have any evidence to support that it would be reasonable to do so. The offer that the landlord made relating to the resident’s time and trouble before the stage 2 complaint response has been considered in the complaint handling section of this report.
22. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £700 compensation. This is made up of an approximate £100 for each of the incomplete repairs, per year that it remained outstanding, in addition to the £200 already offered. This is in line with our remedies guidance for where there has been maladministration over a significant period of time.

23. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 days of being logged and stage 2 complaints within 20. It should log complaints and escalation requests within 5 days. It was a failing that the landlord took 110 days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It rightly acknowledged that part of this delay was because it had failed to log the resident’s initial complaint of 20 July 2023. However, 62 days of the delay at stage 1 happened after the resident had complained again and the landlord became aware of this mistake on 6 September 2023.
24. The resident confirmed in emails with the landlord that he wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of complaints process on 9 January 2024. It took the landlord 195 days to issue its stage 2 response. The landlord was right to describe these delays as a ‘serious failure’ that resulted in a ‘poor complaint journey’.
25. The reasons for these delays are somewhat unclear, though it is noted that the landlord referred both internally and in conversation with the resident to staffing and personnel issues. The landlord referred to ‘significant structural changes’ that its complaints team has since undergone, which included recruiting more staff. The evidence shows that the landlord wrote to the resident on some occasions to apologise that it could not provide a stage 2 complaint response as expected, often on the date the complaint was due. While this does not mitigate the failing, it does demonstrate that the landlord appropriately kept track of the stage 2 complaint and supports its account that capacity and structural challenges were the likely cause. As a result, we are satisfied that no further learning is required in respect of the significant delays seen.
26. The landlord offered a total of £425 compensation for its complaint handling and time and trouble. In this case, it was not unreasonable that the landlord provided compensation for these matters together. This is because the evidence shows that much of the adverse effect experienced by the resident related to his time and trouble, which was closely linked to the landlord’s complaint handling failures. The amount was reflective of the time and trouble gone to by the resident. The landlord said that it was the maximum amount available for time and trouble under its policies. It is also in line with our remedies guidance. As a result, the landlord made an offer of compensation that provides reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling. This finding has been made on the basis that the offer of £425 has been paid to the resident already or will be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Learning

27. Since the time of the stage 2 complaint response, we note that the landlord has made several changes its policies, processes, and internal structures. We have also determined over 130 investigations into the landlord since 22 July 2024, which are published on our website at the time of this determination. Several of these have identified failings which share similar themes to those identified in this report and have made orders for the landlord to learn from these. For example, in case 202326358 determined on 25 March 2025, when we ordered the landlord carry out a case review to identify the causes of the failures we identified, and identify learning and service improvement points.

The landlord was ordered to consider delays in inspecting reported repairs, delays in carrying out further investigations and surveys, and delays in completing repairs. We also ordered the landlord to consider learning from its communication with the resident around repairs, as well as its oversight of repairs specifically relating to leasehold residents. In view of these learning orders, the closely relevant themes and time periods considered, it is not necessary to repeat learning orders relating to the failings highlighted in this investigation.