From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Peabody Trust (202446363)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202446363

Peabody Trust

28 August 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak in the resident’s property.
  2. We have also considered how the landlord handled the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bed flat. The resident lives in the property with her young son and her mother, who is her carer. The resident has reported that she lives with depression, and that her son has breathing difficulties. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or her household.
  2. On or around 10 February 2024, the resident’s neighbour reported a leak into their property from the resident’s property. The landlord asked the resident to provide access for an inspection. She told the landlord the leak was also affecting her property. On 16 February 2024, she told the landlord that the leak had completely flooded her son’s bedroom.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 26 February 2024. She said the landlord had failed to handle the leak appropriately. She said it had repeatedly failed to attend booked appointments, and that her furniture, skirting boards and carpets had been ruined by the leak. She received no response from the landlord, so made a further complaint on 29 May 2024.
  4. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 10 September 2024. It said it was waiting to hear back from contractors with their report of what happened, and would update her when it had heard from them. It said it would repair any damage to the decorations caused by the leak, and offered £1,047 compensation. This was broken down as follows:
    1. £415 reimbursement for damaged carpets.
    2. £466 towards the damaged bed (with 10% deducted as the bed was 10 months old).
    3. £116 towards the damaged chest of drawers (with 10% deducted as the chest of drawers was 10 months old).
    4. £50 for delays in its complaint handling.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint as she was unhappy with the compensation offered. She said the landlord should offer £3,000 compensation.
  6. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 23 December 2024. It said:
    1. It believed the contribution towards the damaged items was fair. It recommended she take out contents insurance in future, as it was not generally responsible for damaged items.
    2. It recognised that there was poor communication surrounding the repairs, and that it delayed both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses.
    3. It offered a total of £1,167 compensation. This was broken down as follows:
      1. £997 for damaged items (as set out in the stage 1 response).
      2. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs.
      3. £70 for time and trouble related to its complaint handling.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. We may not investigate complaints which have not yet completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident has raised a number of further complaints since her initial complaint. This includes complaints about increased energy bills due to leaks, concerns about her bathroom, and also about damp and mould. Those concerns were not part of the original complaint which went through the landlord’s complaints process. As such, we can only look into the resident’s original complaint about the landlord’s handling of a leak in February 2024, and her dissatisfaction with its compensation offer.

Leak

  1. It is common ground that the landlord was responsible for resolving the February 2024 leak in the resident’s property. The landlord has accepted that there were failings in how it handled the leak, and offered the resident compensation. The resident does not think the compensation is sufficient.
  2. Our role is to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its obligations when handling the repairs. When a landlord has accepted failings and offered compensation, we assess whether the compensation offered appropriately reflects the likely level of distress or inconvenience caused by its failings, and whether it is in line with our published remedies guidance.
  3. The landlord first became aware of an uncontainable leak from the resident’s property into the property below on 10 February 2024. This was an emergency repair which the landlord should have resolved within 24 hours under its responsive repairs policy. However, it did not do so. The landlord’s records show the following:
    1. It initially did not attend because it did not alert its out of hours team to the report.
    2. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 16 February 2024. The landlord sent an emergency plumber. The plumber said the leak was from a central heating pipe with the boiler losing pressure, so a heating engineer was needed.
    3. The landlord booked a joint visit for a heating engineer and a carpenter (because the pipes were boxed in) on 19 February 2024. The landlord says the resident did not provide access. The resident disputes this.
    4. The landlord booked a further appointment on 21 February 2024. 1 of the 2 contractors chose not to send an operative (the carpenter) on the basis that the heating engineer could break the boxing to access the pipes. However, the heating engineer said they could not complete the works without a carpenter.
    5. On 27 February 2024, the heating engineer confirmed the issue was the pressure gauge, and that further parts were needed. They said the landlord should book a further appointment the following week (between 4 and 8 March 2024).
  4. The only part of the above that is disputed is whether the resident denied access on 19 February 2024. The resident said she waited home for 2 days, but no engineer attended. She said that when she called the engineers later they did not have her details, and told her the landlord gave them contact details for the former tenant. The landlord’s repair records say there was no answer at the property.
  5. However, the landlord has provided no evidence which supports a conclusion that the resident did not provide access. For example, there are no notes to show if the operative made any attempts to call the resident, or if they went to the correct property. Without that evidence, we cannot reasonably conclude that the resident refused access.
  6. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when it completed the repair and resolved the leak. This is because there is no reference in the repair records provided to any appointments after 27 February 2024, and no confirmation of when it fixed the leak. The earliest confirmation that the leak was resolved was on 30 August 2024, when the resident confirmed the same while discussing her complaint with the landlord. The landlord has also been unable to confirm the date the leak was resolved when asked, and assumed it was completed the following week (with no records to confirm this). This is evidence of inadequate record keeping on the landlord’s part, which has hampered our investigation into this complaint.
  7. However, as the last action related to the relevant works order in the repair records provided is 25 March 2024, and there is no evidence of any further reports of a leak until September 2024, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord resolved the leak at some point between 4 and 25 March 2024.
  8. The landlord has accepted failings in its handling of the leak, and offered the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. It has also offered compensation to partially reimburse the resident for damaged items she had to replace as a result of the leak. The resident initially accepted this compensation following the stage 2 response, but changed her mind as she decided she did not think it was sufficient.
  9. Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, we do not consider that the compensation offered is enough to put things right. Based on the evidence provided, the landlord took somewhere from 3-6 weeks to resolve an emergency repair that it should have resolved within 24 hours. Throughout that time, there were multiple failed appointments, as well as poor communication, with the resident having to chase up action from the landlord while the ongoing leak caused damage to her son’s bedroom.
  10. The compensation offered is in line with our recommended range for minimal failings of a short duration. The failings in this case were neither minimal nor of a short duration, so the compensation offered is not enough to put things right. We therefore find there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the leak. As such, we have considered what the landlord needs to do to put things right.
  11. The intention of compensation for financial losses is to return a resident (as far as possible) to the position they would have been in but for the landlord’s failings. The landlord’s compensation policy says that when it is responsible for damage to items, it will offer compensation. The items the resident sought compensation for are the carpets (£415), a bed (£517), a chest of drawers (£129), and decorative work.
  12. The landlord did not offer any compensation for decorative work, and explained it would complete any work (including repairing damaged skirting boards) itself. This was reasonable and appropriate, and in line with standard industry practice.
  13. With regard to the remaining items, the landlord has offered to fully reimburse the cost of the resident’s carpets, which was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances. However, it only offered to reimburse 90% of the cost of the bed and chest of drawers. It said this was a discretionary offer, and not intended to replace contents insurance, which was its recommended route for full replacement of damaged items.
  14. It is generally advisable for residents to take out contents insurance to protect their items in the event of damage. And where damage to items was the result of a leak itself, rather than any failings on the landlord’s part, it would usually be appropriate to refer a resident to contents insurance. In this case, however, it has been accepted that the damage was caused, at least in part, by the landlord’s failings. As such, we would expect the landlord to either offer appropriate compensation for damaged items in line with its policy, or refer the matter to its liability insurer, rather than signposting the resident to her contents insurance.
  15. Having considered the matter carefully, we do not consider that the compensation offered for damaged items is sufficient. The landlord has not provided any policy which sets out appropriate deductions, and its internal guidance given during the complaints process was that a deduction for the age of the furniture should be 10% per year. The items in this case were less than a year old, and its decision not to reimburse the resident for the full cost of the damaged furniture means she has experienced financial losses as a result of the landlord’s failings in handling the leak.
  16. So, while it was reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation for the damaged items, it should have reimbursed the full cost in this particular case. The landlord must therefore reimburse the resident for the full cost of the bed and chest of drawers which had to be replaced as a result of the delays in resolving the leak. This is separate to the compensation for distress and inconvenience.
  17. Based on the evidence provided, it took the landlord 3-6 weeks to complete an emergency repair. During that time, the resident had to live with an uncontrollable leak. She said it flooded her young son’s bedroom, and damaged both her belongings and the decorations. She also had to chase action from the landlord. This would inevitably cause both distress and inconvenience. As would the time needed to replace the damaged furniture and carpets.
  18. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, we consider that the landlord should pay £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the leak. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but have no permanent impact. For the avoidance of doubt, this is inclusive of the £100 offered as part of the complaints process.

Complaint handling

  1. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must log a complaint within 5 working days, and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of logging the complaint. It must also issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of an escalation request.
  2. The resident made a complaint on 26 February 2024. The landlord did not issue a stage 1 response until 9 September 2024, over 6 months after the complaint. During that time, the resident chased a response on 28 March, 5 April, 15 May, 29 May, 5 June, 18 June, 31 July, and 26 August 2024. The landlord repeatedly told the resident that the case handler would get in touch, but then failed to contact her. It was only after the resident insisted that her complaint be handed to a different case handler that the landlord took any steps to investigate the complaint. This was clearly inappropriate, and demonstrates a lack of appropriate oversight of its complaint handling.
  3. In addition to this, the resident raised further concerns related to boiler costs from the leak prior to the landlord’s stage 1 response. The Code sets out that when further issues are raised during a stage 1 investigation, the landlord must either respond to them in the stage 1 response (if the issues are related) or open a new stage 1 complaint (if the issues are unrelated or would unreasonably delay the stage 1 response). The landlord did neither. It told the resident those concerns would be added to the stage 1 complaint, and then failed to do so. It also did not log a new complaint. This was unreasonable.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 September 2024. However, the landlord did not issue a stage 2 response until 23 December 2024 – more than 3 months after the escalation request. As such, the landlord’s complaint handling failings continued. This also meant the resident had to repeatedly chase a response (which she did on 10 October, 23 October, 13 November, and 5 December 2024).
  5. The landlord recognised there were delays in its complaint handling. It initially told her on 16 September 2024 that it would offer £100 compensation for complaint handling. However, in its stage 2 response it offered £70. Neither would be sufficient for the level of complaint handling failings in this case, and the landlord has not recognised all of its failings (such as not addressing the further issue raised regarding energy bills). We therefore find there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.
  6. In addition to logging the resident’s further complaints and issuing stage 1 responses, the landlord must also pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which negatively affect a resident, but have no permanent impact.
  7. We also note that the resident made a later complaint about damp and mould in March 2025, which the landlord also did not respond to in line with the Code. As that complaint was after the stage 2 response for this complaint, we have not assessed the landlord’s handling of that complaint or whether any further compensation should be paid. However, it demonstrates that the landlord has not learned from this complaint. As such, we have made an order for staff training below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been:
    1. Maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of a leak in the resident’s property.
    2. Maladministration with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord must issue stage 1 responses to the resident’s complaints about increased boiler costs and its handling of damp and mould in the property within 2 weeks of the date of this determination.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. Issue a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £1,511 compensation. This is inclusive of the compensation offered in its stage 2 response, and is broken down as follows:
      1. £1,061 for damaged items.
      2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the February 2024 leak.
      3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
  3. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must arrange refresher training for its complaint handling staff, using this complaint as a case study, to prevent a recurrence of its failings in future.
  4. The landlord must provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescales set out above.