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

Take part in the consultation

Peabody Trust (202440717)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202440717

Peabody Trust

25 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s report of a leak and the damage caused to her flooring, resulting in damp and mould.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom third floor flat where she has lived since 16 July 2018.
  2. The resident noticed a wet patch on her bedroom carpet and contacted the landlord to report a leak on 19 February 2024. The landlord made attempts to resolve the leak over the following months with a final resolution achieved in August 2024. The resident reported damage to the flooring in the bathroom, bedroom, and hallway.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 23 October 2024. She said information given regarding only certain flooring being repaired or replaced was not acceptable. She also stated the leak had prevented her from using the bedroom due to mould on furniture and clothing. She said the situation also impacted her health and finances due to the need to purchase dehumidifiers to reduce moisture.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 28 November 2024 advised of the following outcomes:
    1. It acknowledged that multiple repair visits had taken place without the leak being fully resolved. It accepted this caused further damage to the flat due to the length of time taken and apologised for this.
    2. It advised that the request for repair, or replacement, of carpets would need to go through its insurer and provided details for her to pursue a claim.
    3. It stated that a previous damp and mould inspection highlighted the need to resolve the leak before treating the mould. It had raised repairs for the floorboards and for damp and mould treatment. It advised the repair monitoring team would contact her with further details.
    4. In recognition of the failings identified, it offered £914.57 compensation. This consisted of:

i.        £350 for time and trouble caused by the delays in resolving the leak and in the damp and mould repairs.

ii.      £300 for distress and impact on the resident’s health caused by the delays.

iii.    £267.57 for the lack of enjoyment of her home. This was based on a calculation of 5% of her weekly rent from May 2024 to November 2024.

  1. Having tried to escalate the complaint with the landlord, the resident passed her case to this Service on 10 January 2025. As her complaint had not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, we referred it back to the landlord.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 May 2025. It partially upheld the complaint and advised of the following:
    1. It was unable to confirm that it had processed the £914.57 offered at stage 1. This was awaiting confirmation from the case manager.
    2. A building surveyor would visit to inspect the carpet and determine its condition.
    3. It apologised for not acknowledging the complaint escalation within appropriate timescales. It offered £150 in recognition of the time and trouble this had caused.
  3. The resident referred the complaint to us on 29 May 2025. She said repairs were still outstanding to both the communal hallway and bedroom carpets. She had also not received the compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has described how this situation impacted her health. While this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. While we cannot consider the effect on health, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced due to any landlord failings.

Policy and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out timescales in which it will attend to repairs depending on severity. It will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and routine repairs within 30 days. If the repair requires a specialist contractor or technician to diagnose the issue, these works will be completed within 60 days.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider time, trouble and inconvenience incurred when assessing compensation for a service failure. The amount awarded will depend on the impact with a range up to £650. In exceptional circumstances, where a failure to deliver a service may have impacted a resident’s enjoyment of their whole property, it would consider a percentage of rent refund.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will log complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. At stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days.

The residents report of a leak and the damage caused to her flooring, resulting in damp and mould

  1. The resident has raised separate complaint elements within the overall substantive issue of the leak. As such, the investigation is separated into each of these points below.

The resident’s report of a leak and the damage caused to her flooring

  1. Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair, and to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy. Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards.
  2. It is not in dispute that the resident first reported water staining on her bedroom carpet on 12 February 2024. The landlord acted appropriately and inspected the property on 23 February 2024. It followed up the inspection with further visits to try and identify the cause of the leak. Its initial response to the resident’s reports was reasonable and in accordance with its policy and procedures.
  3. The landlord’s records show that its contractor completed 6 visits before it was able to resolve the leak in August 2024. Throughout this period, the resident reported the leak spreading into the kitchen, storage cupboard, hallway and communal areas.
  4. The Ombudsman acknowledges it can take more than one attempt to resolve a leak as it can be difficult to identify the cause at the outset. In some cases, it may need to attempt different repairs before it is successful. Some delay in identifying the cause of the leak and repairing the problem would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord.
  5. However, the landlord’s records are unclear as to what repairs took place during these initial visits. It is also unclear as to why it took until May 2024 before appointing a specialist contractor despite the apparent difficulty in diagnosing and resolving the leak over previous months. Its records show the leak as resolved by August 2024 but does not state the cause or what repairs were needed.
  6. Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations at the time. It would have been reasonable to consider appointing a specialist contractor sooner to find the source of the leak. Its failure to seek specialist advice early in the timeline caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience.
  7. On 23 October 2024, the resident advised the landlord that due to the delays in resolving the issue, she was unable to sleep in her bedroom. She said this was due to the water damage to her carpet causing mould growth on the wall and furniture. She also advised that she had purchased a dehumidifier to address the moisture in the flat, and that insects were present.
  8. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 28 November 2024, it acknowledged the stress and inconvenience the delays had caused and:
    1. Committed to treating and resolving the insect infestation, as well as the outstanding repairs. It provided details for the repair monitoring team who would oversee these works until completion. It raised 2 repairs for floorboards and damp and mould works.
    2. Advised that the resident would need to claim for carpet and furniture damage through her own contents insurance. It also provided the email address for its insurance team to consider the claim if the resident felt it was liable.
  9. This was an appropriate response from the landlord. It showed a proactive approach to address any outstanding works and monitor these until completion. It was also appropriate for it to signpost her to its insurance team regarding her damaged carpet and furniture. This is in line with the tenancy agreement and its compensation policy for floor coverings not within a kitchen or bathroom.
  10. However, there is no evidence provided to show the landlord considered the resident’s reports of being unable to use her bedroom or having to purchase a dehumidifier. It would have been proactive for the landlord to have considered the resident’s costs for this and to comment accordingly. It would have also been reasonable for the landlord to recognise the need to provide its own dehumidifiers along with a full treatment plan for the insects.
  11. The records show the first pest control visit was in May 2025. This was a period of around 6 months from the resident’s initial report of pests until the landlord acted. This represented an unreasonable delay and the resident reports the problem is still present.
  12. In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 22 May 2025, it partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It stated it was unable to confirm if it had processed the compensation offered at stage 1. It also confirmed that it had passed the resident’s request to have her carpet replaced to a building surveyor to assess. This conflicted with the information regarding the carpet replacement that it provided at stage 1. This likely caused some uncertainty and additional time and trouble for the resident.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. The resident first reported the appearance of damp and mould in her initial repair request in February 2024. This was allegedly caused by the leak spreading under the flooring and going unnoticed until it presented on the bedroom carpet.
  2. On 21 May 2024, the resident reported that she was now experiencing problems with her health, which she believed were caused by the damp and mould. The landlord appropriately arranged an inspection and photographed the affected area in both May and June 2024. The landlord’s actions show it was taking her reports seriously albeit the Ombudsman has not been provided with these reports to evidence what risks were presentor a recommended course of action.
  3. While we were still able to determine this case using the information that is available, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
  4. The records do show the landlord initially sought to resolve the leak prior to addressing the mould growth. While this was reasonable, the landlord did not record any efforts to reduce the risks to the resident in the short term such as an initial mould wash or introduction of dehumidifiers. Damp and mould are potential category 1 hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. The landlord should have been aware of its obligations under HHSRS and conducted additional monitoring of the property where it identified potential hazards.
  5. In the November 2024 stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged delays caused the leak to spread, resulting in damp and mould growth which was now affecting both the resident’s health and belongings. At this point, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer an action plan of preventative measures to mitigate the impact on the resident and avoid the further spread of mould.
  6. The landlord did not undertake any mould treatment works until 26 September 2024. This was around 4 months after the resident reported her concerns and a month after the resolution of the leak in August 2024. This represented an unreasonable delay which was outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timescales. The landlord failed to react appropriately to the initial reports by providing a temporary solution while efforts to repair the leak continued. However However, the resident has reported that, since the treatment was applied, the mould has not returned.

Summary

  1. The landlord acknowledged certain service failures through the complaints process. It also recognised how these may have adversely affected the resident. As such, it offered compensation of £914.57, consisting of:
    1. £350 for time and trouble, including delays in resolving the leak and in the mould treatment.
    2. £564.57 for distress and inconvenience, including the impact on health due to the repair delays along with a 5% refund of weekly rent from May 2024 to November 2024.
  2. This was an appropriate response by the landlord. It was positive for it to acknowledge its service failures and award compensation for this. The total offer of £914.57 was reasonable and reflects the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies for a failure which had a significant (including physical and/or emotional) impact on a resident.
  3. Altogether it took the landlord around 6 months to repair the leak and a further month to treat the mould. There were related delays in addressing the resident’s concerns about moisture and insects. However, the landlord signposted appropriately regarding the damage to the resident’s belongings and awarded proportionate compensation. Overall, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress to resolve the complaint about its handling of the water leak resulting in damp and mould and damage to the resident’s carpet.

The associated complaint

  1. The resident first raised a complaint on 23 October 2024. The landlord acknowledged this 15 working days later. The landlord’s stage 1 response was then issued on 28 November 2024.
  2. The acknowledgement and response both fell outside of the landlord’s policies, which state the initial acknowledgement will be issued within 5 working days with an investigation response at stage 1 being issued within 10 working days.
  3. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 12 December 2024. Having received no response, she approached this Service. We contacted the landlord on 16 May 2025 to advise it was required to provide a final response by 22 May 2025.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 May 2025. We acknowledge that the landlord recognised delays in its process and offered compensation in recognition of this of £150 to reflect the poor complaint handling experience. This amount is within a range that the Ombudsman recommends where there are delays in getting a matter resolved. We therefore find that the compensation award was proportionate given the delays of several months in handling the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. A reasonable offer of redress made by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of a leak and the damage caused to her flooring, resulting in damp and mould.
    2. A reasonable offer of redress made by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident £1,064.57 compensation that it offered though the complaints process. The Ombudsman’s findings of reasonable redress are made on the basis that this amount is paid.
  2. The landlord should write to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report to confirm its decision regarding the repair or replacement of the bedroom and communal hallway carpets. It should again include its insurer’s details if needed.
  3. The landlord should instruct a new pest control assessment within 4 weeks of the date of this report to address the ongoing infestation the resident has reported to this Service. It should provide the outcome in writing to the resident within 6 weeks of the date of this report.