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

Take part in the consultation

Peabody Trust (202446462)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202446462

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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:

  1. Handling of repairs to windows and doors, and associated damp and mould.
  2. Complaint handling.

Background

2.             The resident and her partner are joint tenants of a 3-bedroom semi-detached house, where they live with their 2 children. The tenancy started on 16 November 2015. The resident has had a heart transplant, cancer, two strokes, and her immune system is severely compromised. The resident’s daughter has asthma. The landlord was aware of these issues throughout the period of the complaint.

3.             The resident says she has reported damp and mould in the property going back to at least 2022. She states that in late 2022 or early 2023, the condition of the windows was determined as being the main cause of the recurring damp and mould.

4.             The resident raised a formal complaint on 26 November 2024. She reported that:

  1. Several surveyors had come over the previous 2 years saying that the windows need to be replaced.
  2. There was a large crack in the frame of the back door.
  3. The landlord had merged with her previous landlord, and she was concerned that the repairs information had been lost in the transition.
  4. Draughts were coming through the windows and back door frame and that was costing her more money for heating.
  5. She is vulnerable and she was worried about the impact to her and her family’s health and that the landlord did not seem to be considering this.

5.             The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 18 December 2024. It said: 

  1. That it had surveyed the property in February 2024, and it was recommended the windows be repaired rather than replaced.
  2. That it had raised works to complete a damp and mould wash, install a vent in the bathroom, and to repair the windows.
  3. That it completed another survey on 25 October 2024 and window replacement was recommended. It said this has been referred to the investment team to review and it would update the resident and confirm next steps when it had this information.
  4. It apologised for the delay and offered £200 in compensation made up of:
    1. £150 for distress and inconvenience.
    2. £50 for service failure.

6.             The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 18 December 2024. She was not happy with the outcome because:

  1. She was losing heat rapidly and the draughts in the bedroom were especially bad.
  2. The contractor who completed the damp and mould wash had ripped off sections of wallpaper.
  3. A contractor had measured the windows and doors for replacement and then the works were cancelled.

7.             The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 6 March 2025. It said that the stage 1 response was fair and reasonable at the time, but there had been further failures since then. It acknowledged that it did not follow through with the actions it agreed in the stage 1 response and was delayed in issuing the stage 2 response. To put things right it:

  1. Attended earlier in the week and some work had begun, and the window replacement was scheduled, but it did not provide a specific date for when.
  2. Would monitor to oversee the progress of repairs and provide updates.
  3. Offered an increased compensation amount of £400 made up of:
    1. £250 for distress and inconvenience.
    2. £150 for time and trouble for complaint handling failures.
  4. Said that the compensation figure would be reviewed once all of the works were completed.

8.             The resident escalated the complaint to this Service on 20 May 2025. She said that:

  1. The issue had been going on for over 3 years.
  2. She and her family had been impacted by the damp and mould caused by the window issue.
  3. She did not feel that the landlord took her serious health needs into account when responding to the repairs.

9.             Since initially contacting this Service, the resident has confirmed that the windows were replaced on 27 May 2025 and the doors and door surrounds prior to that. She says she has seen a change as the damp and mould have not returned, the home is no longer draughty, and they cannot hear road noise from inside anymore.

Assessment and findings

Handling of repairs to windows and doors, and associated damp and mould

10.        Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes windows and window frames. Under Section 9a of the Act, the landlord has an obligation that the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy in relation to freedom from damp.

11.        The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy says it will investigate all reports of damp, mould, and condensation and will complete any necessary repairs that would help tackle the issue.

12.        The landlord’s repair policy says that window replacement works should be completed within 60 calendar days.

13.        The landlord merged with the tenant’s previous landlord and took over in 2023. We’ve requested repair records from before the merger and the landlord states it does not have access to these. The resident has been clear there was a survey in September 2023 that determined the windows needed to be replaced as they were beyond repair. We would expect that repair records, especially outstanding repair information, be shared when landlords merge. It is not reasonable that this did not happen in this case, and this contributed to a delay in the works being carried out. In the absence of the repair records prior to the merger, we have determined it is reasonable to rely on what the resident has told us about what happened prior, as the resident has been consistent on what they have said over time to the landlord and to us.

14.        The record shows that the resident notified the new landlord in October 2023 to state they were waiting on windows replacement. The landlord inspected in February 2024 and said the windows could be repaired. The resident queried this as it contradicted what she had been told previously about the windows being beyond repair. A further survey was booked in for April 2024. It was reasonable that the landlord booked in another survey given what the resident told it about what the previous surveyors said. The landlord’s repair records are unclear about what specifically was recommended regarding the windows in April 2024. According to the resident, it was again determined that the windows were beyond repair. Where a further survey is completed, it is reasonable to provide an update to the resident. The landlord failed to do this which would have caused distress to the resident.

15.        The resident continued to chase this issue and there were further appointments, including another survey in October 2024 which said the windows needed to be replaced. There is no evidence to show that the landlord took the resident’s vulnerabilities into account in scheduling the works, which were well outside of its expected timeframes. The required works were completed on 27 May 2025. Given that the issue was identified prior to the merger in April 2023, this is a delay of over two years, which is not reasonable.

16.        During this period of over 2 years, the resident continued to contact the landlord about the issue. The resident and her family were impacted significantly as: 

  1. They lived with recurring damp and mould, despite the landlord attending several times for mould washes and the installation of vents. The landlord’s repair notes described the mould as ‘severe’, and the resident was concerned about the mould coming down the wall near her daughter’s bed. This was especially concerning as her daughter has asthma.
  2. She reported over 10 visits regarding the windows going back to 2022 including engineers, surveyors, and a window company (to measure). Many of these were the same type of appointments as has previously been attended. This caused inconvenience as the resident, or her partner had to take time off of work to be available for these appointments.
  3. They lived in a draughty house which caused concern because the resident was worried about getting sick as she has a compromised immune system. The windows being draughty would have made the costs to heat the home higher.
  4. The family’s comfort in and enjoyment of the home were impacted for over two years due to the ongoing damp and mould and the home being draughty, while waiting for door and window repairs.
  5. The home now has strips of wallpaper missing that were removed during mould treatments.

17.        Part of the resident’s complaint escalation was the damage to the wallpaper. The landlord did not respond to this concern in its stage 2 response, which meant it missed an opportunity to set out how it would put things right.

18.        In consideration of the above, we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to windows and doors and associated damp and mould. The landlord has made some attempts to put things right and had they not done so, a finding of severe maladministration would have been made.

19.        In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failing to effectively manage the repairs and the impact this had to the resident. It said it would review the compensation figure once the works were completed but despite the resident chasing, the landlord has not offered further compensation. In our view, £250 is not adequate to acknowledge the failures of the landlord and the impact to the resident.

20.        We do not have enough information to know exactly how much more the resident’s energy costs were during the delay in fixing the windows. On its website, the Energy Saving Trust estimates that residents can save approximately £140 a year in energy bills if they upgrade their windows. We have used this to come up with a reasonable amount to order the landlord to pay towards energy costs during the period they caused a delay.

21.        Given the above, we have ordered the landlord to pay £1,400 (including the £250 already offered) in compensation, made up of:

  1. £800 for the distress and inconvenience by the landlord’s failures in handling the repairs. This amount is in line with the landlord’s policy on compensation for an extensive disruption.
  2. £200 for the inconvenience of being available for over 10 appointments regarding the windows prior to them being fixed.
  3. £300 contribution towards increased energy costs.
  4. £100 towards decorating costs due to the ripped wallpaper.

 

 

Complaint handling

22.        The landlord’s complaint policy says it defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

23.        The evidence shows that the resident raised concerns about the delay in window and door repairs in October 2023, although they have explained they also brought this up with the landlord prior to the April 2023 merger. The resident continued to chase this up, including raising concerns several times in early 2024. The resident raised a formal complaint in July 2024. It was not until the resident raised a further formal complaint on 26 November 2024 that the landlord acknowledged the complaint (on the same day). This was not reasonable, as the resident had been raising concerns about the repair delays for several months prior to this.

24.        The landlord provided its stage 1 response, which was 6 working days late, on 18 December 2024. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on the same day, and the landlord acknowledged this on 15 January 2025, after the resident chased it. This is well outside of its 5 working day timeframe to acknowledge the escalation. The stage 2 response was issued on 6 March 2025, which was approximately 3 weeks late.

25.        The delays in logging and responding to the complaint were not reasonable and understandably caused frustration to the resident.

26.        In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised offered £150 for its complaint handling failures, including delays and not following through on the actions agreed at stage 1.

27.        Where a landlord admits its failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord was fair and reasonable.

28.        In our view, the £150 offered by the landlord represents reasonable redress for the complaint handling failures. This amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our guidance. We will ask the landlord to pay this amount if it hasn’t already done so.

Determination

29.        In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to windows and doors, and associated damp and mould.

30.        In accordance with Paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in failures to its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

31.        Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that:

  1. A senior level of staff has apologised in writing for the failures we have identified, and the distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. It has paid the resident £1,400 in compensation (including the £250 already offered) made up of:
    1. £800 for distress and inconvenience.
    2. £300 contribution towards energy costs.
    3. £200 for inconvenience of multiple appointments.
    4. £100 towards decorating costs.

32.        It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by us should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears.

Recommendation

33.        It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident £150 for failures in its complaint handling, if it hasn’t already done so. A finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this has or will be paid.