Peabody Trust (202441501)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2 bedroom flat with her children. Her son was born prematurely and has respiratory issues. She first reported damp and mould in February 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. We found:

a. The landlord failed to carry out a damp and mould survey in line with its policy. It then failed to carry out necessary repairs within the timescales set out in its policy.

d. The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s initial complaint. It did not respond within reasonable timeframes or fully investigate the complaint.

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.

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 have not investigated

6. The resident has raised concerns about events that occurred after the landlord’s stage 2 response. We will not investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. The resident has raised a complaint about the welfare of her family in the property while works are completed and the suitability of temporary accommodation offered. These issues have not completed the landlord’s complaints process. We will be investigating up to the landlord’s July 2025 stage 2 response. 
7. The resident also said the living conditions impacted her family’s health and well-being. We do not doubt this. However, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for the courts to deal with or through a personal injury claim. We have considered the distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident and whether the landlord adequately considered the household’s vulnerabilities.
8. The resident has also advised that she is seeking compensation for the damage caused to her personal belongings due to the property condition and the mould. It is not our role to determine liability for damaged possessions, and the resident may wish to make an insurance claim.
9. Part of her complaint also related to overcrowding at the property. Whether or not a property is overcrowded is not for the Ombudsman to decide. Nor is whether or not a landlord should permanently rehouse a resident. As such, we will not order the landlord to permanently rehouse the resident.

    What we have investigated

10. Landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from category 1 hazards as per the Housing health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). This includes damp and mould.
11. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it will carry out routine repairs in 28 calendar days. Its damp, mould and condensation policy says it will investigate all reports of damp and mould and carry out any necessary repairs to tackle the issue.
12. The resident reported damp and mould in February 2024 and on multiple occasions since then. She raised her complaint on 11 July 2024. The landlord confirmed in its March 2025 stage 1 response that it had not done a technical inspection despite having carried out 6 mould washes in 2024. It carried out further mould washes in January and February 2025 before it raised a technical inspection.
13. The landlord acknowledged this failure in its stage 1 response. It also confirmed it had been aware of vulnerabilities in the house from May 2024 (when the resident advised it about her premature baby). It said it had raised a technical inspection and could not offer a move as a complaint resolution. It is of concern that the landlord does not appear to have carried out a risk assessment at this, or any further, stage. There was a clear failing to consider the potential effects on the household. The landlord’s damp and mould policy also confirms it will temporarily move residents if the issue is critical. There is no evidence it considered this and decided whether the problem was critical.
14. In March 2025 the landlord offered compensation of £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. It then carried out a technical survey. The surveyor said the property required further ventilation and there was possibly penetrative damp in the living room. Instead of exploring the potential penetrative damp and addressing the ventilation, the landlord carried out a further mould wash and painted the affected areas. This repeat of its earlier actions likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. She also explained that the mould and patchy paint hindered her ability to mutually exchange due to the poor decorative state of the property.
15. The landlord raised another mould wash in April 2025 when the resident confirmed the mould was still coming back. The resident chased the landlord for updates on the ventilation work raised in the survey. She was not informed what work would be carried out. The landlord had told her it had booked in works, but it carried out a further inspection at the appointment. When contractors attended again, there was a lack of communication, and they did not complete the work. This delay in progressing the works and resolving the mould was unreasonable and caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
16. The landlord sent its stage 2 response in July 2025. It upheld the complaint and added notes to the case to trigger a technical inspection if damp and mould occurred again. This was a reasonable step and showed good proactive measures. This should have happened automatically according to its damp and mould policy. It acknowledged its delay in raising a technical inspection and said it had booked in ventilation works as a result of this inspection.
17. The landlord continued to offer the £500 compensation from the stage 1 response for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays. This did not consider the further delay in actioning the works (between March and July 2025) and the effect this had on the resident. During this time, the resident continued to raise the damp and mould concerns and had to chase for updates and information about the works required.
18. Overall, the landlord took some steps to mitigate the problem with mould washes but caused unnecessary delays in failing to action a technical survey to identify the cause earlier than it did. It then further delayed actioning the works required. The resident had to live with ongoing damp and mould for over a year. She repeatedly cleaned the damp and mould in the property throughout that time. She suffered significant distress with the concerns she had about the effect of the delays on her family. The compensation offered did not consider the additional distress and inconvenience the resident experienced up to the landlord’s stage 2 response.
19. In addition to a written apology, the landlord must pay the resident £650 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the damp and mould. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but which do not have a permanent impact. We have not made any orders relating to the works as the landlord and resident are in contact about a potential move while repairs are ongoing.

20. The landlord’s complaints policy says it would send a stage 1 response within 15 working days. It confirms it will send a stage 2 response within 20 working days. This is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code relevant at the time of the complaint. It says that when a resident expresses dissatisfaction, it will always give them the choice to make a complaint.
21. The resident raised concerns about damp and mould more than 5 times before making her complaint. She submitted her complaint via the online complaint webform to the landlord. The landlord treated this as a ‘Service Recovery’ case and did not accept it through its complaints policy. This continued when the resident asked her MP to speak to the landlord on her behalf. The landlord did not treat the resident’s complaint as such until 7 months after she had raised it in July 2024.
22. The resident had to seek intervention from the Housing Ombudsman to progress the complaint. This is a significant failing under the complaints policy and Complaint Handling Code. The resident clearly expressed dissatisfaction, and it is of concern that the service recovery was an obstacle to the complaint’s procedure. This failure caused significant inconvenience and distress to the resident. It also took her time and trouble in approaching her landlord and other agencies to try and gain access to the landlord’s complaints procedure.
23. In the landlord’s stage 1 response in March 2025, it did not acknowledge this delay or any failure in its complaint’s procedure. This was not a reasonable response. When the resident escalated her complaint, she had a response to say all her questions had been answered. Though it had escalated the complaint internally, it failed to clearly communicate the escalation to the resident. Given the obstacles she had in the process, this was disheartening and caused further distress, time and trouble. She engaged with us further to ensure her complaint was progressed.
24. In July 2025, 4 months after the stage 1 response, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It apologised for the delay. It said it was dealing with high complaint levels and staffing issues. It acknowledged the same delay as its stage 2 response but did not consider its initial complaint handling delay or the further delays in carrying out repairs. It offered the compensation from its stage 1 response with an additional £50 for its complaint handling. This was an unreasonable offer. It did not consider the significant delays, time and trouble the resident had dealt with in trying for a year to complete the complaints process.
25. Overall, the landlord failed to offer timely and adequate responses. This compensation was not sufficient to put right the distress and inconvenience it caused the resident or the time and trouble she took in pursuing a response. We therefore find there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
26. In addition to a written apology, the landlord must pay compensation of £200 for the inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the complaint. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect the resident, but which do not have a permanent impact.

Learning

Recognising Complaints

27. Recognising a complaint quickly and acting on it in line with the organisation’s policy and the Complaint Handling Code is essential for a fair and transparent service. Staff must identify when a customer raises a formal complaint and avoid misclassifying it as a service request or using early intervention measures when the complaint procedure clearly applies. Following the correct process ensures accountability, timely resolution, and compliance with regulatory standards. It also builds trust by showing the landlord takes concerns seriously and responds consistently. Every team member should understand the complaint policy and apply it.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. Effective knowledge and information management prevents repeated issues from slipping through the cracks. When staff fail to link multiple reports of the same problem, the landlord can miss opportunities to trigger an inspection or review that could resolve the root cause. The landlord must use systems and processes that capture patterns, connect related cases, and escalate them promptly. This approach ensures the landlord acts on evidence, reduces risk, and improves service outcomes.

Communication

29. Clear and timely communication is critical when managing repairs. The landlord must provide regular updates, so the resident does not need to chase for information. When booking work, the landlord should confirm the scope of repairs with contractors before scheduling appointments. Failure to share accurate details creates confusion, delays, and frustration for both the resident and the contractor. Good practice involves explaining what work will take place, confirming dates, and ensuring all parties understand the requirements. Consistent communication builds trust and prevents unnecessary inconvenience.