We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Peabody Trust (202446561)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202446561

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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s request for window replacements.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 20 June 1998. The property is a 1-bed second floor flat.
  2. The landlord raised a works order on 21 August 2024, after the resident reported concerns about draughts and the general condition of the windows. Operatives attended on 5 September 2024 and 23 September 2024. The resident reported that they carried out repairs, but these did not resolve the problems.
  3. On 1 November 2024, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. This related to her continued concerns about the condition of the windows and the landlord’s repairs not resolving this. The resident also expressed health and safety concerns as the windows were difficult to open.
  4. Following a further visit in November 2024, an operative noted that the resident refused further repairs and requested a survey of the condition of the windows. The resident made further requests for a survey during her discussions with the landlord about her complaint.
  5. On 7 January 2025, the landlord provided its stage 1 response in which it did not uphold the complaint. It said there had been no service failures in the way it managed the resident’s concerns about the windows. Nevertheless, it decided that, based on her concerns, it would arrange for a survey of the windows, and it offered £175 in compensation.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 8 January 2025. She said that her windows still required repairs, reiterated her desire for a survey of their condition and said that the offer of compensation was not enough.  
  7. The landlord failed to attend the first survey appointment on 14 January 2025. However, it later attended on 31 January 2025. Following the survey, it agreed to replace the living room windows like-for-like. The resident disputed the proposed like-for-like change as this did not match the windows of neighbouring properties. 
  8. On 10 March 2025, the landlord provided a stage 2 response and reiterated its offer to replace the windows like-for-like but said the resident had so far refused this offer. The landlord acknowledged further delays in providing its complaint response and increased its compensation offer to £225.
  9. Following the complaint, the resident has since agreed to the proposed window replacement.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Within her submission, the resident said that she had reported concerns with the windows in 2021, 2022 and 2023. The landlord said that it had reports logged in 2021 but nothing further until August 2024. This Service has not had sight of any complaint relating to the windows until November 2024.
  2. We will usually investigate events that took place in the 12 months prior to the resident raising a complaint. In view of this and the lack of evidence of relevant actions beforehand, our investigation will focus solely on the events from August 2024 until the end of the complaint process in March 2025. The report may reference other events but this will be for context only.

The resident’s request for window replacements

  1. The landlord’s repair policy says that it will attend a ‘next available’ repair, which the policy describes as non-urgent, within 28 calendar days.
  2. After the resident’s report of draughts coming from the windows on 21 August 2024, the landlord attended the property on 5 September 2024. This was reasonable as it met the timeframe set out in its policy. The landlord reattended on 23 September 2024 to complete follow-on works following that visit. This meant that overall, the repair took 33 calendar days, which is narrowly outside the timeframe for this kind of repair. This was a minor service failure on the part of the landlord.
  3. The resident said that the repair on 23 September 2024 did not stop the draught. She referenced this in her complaint on 1 November 2024. Given that it had not received any interim contact about the problem, it was reasonable that the landlord took no action between late September and early November 2024.
  4. After raising a works order on 5 November 2024, the landlord attended again on 22 November 2024. This was appropriate as it was in line with the timeframe set out in the landlord’s repair policy. During the visit, the operative proposed further works but the resident refused those as she wanted a full window condition survey. As the resident refused the proposed works, it was reasonable that the landlord closed the works order and took no further action.
  5. During the visit, the operative gave the opinion that they could repair any faulty windows. Given this view, the operative said they could not recommend replacement windows and directed the resident to make a request to the landlord. This was appropriate given that they did not consider the windows needed replacing.
  6. The resident had already requested a survey of the condition of the windows in her complaint of 1 November 2024. However, the first evidence of the landlord noting this was in complaint notes from 17 December 2024. This shows that the landlord did not fully consider the information within the complaint until over 6 weeks after the resident raised her request. This led to an unnecessary delay in arranging the survey. Overall, it took 3 months to conduct the survey. This delay was unreasonable.
  7. After the survey on 31 January 2025, the landlord agreed to replace windows like-for-like. The resident initially declined the offer for like-for-like replacements as she wanted the windows to match neighbouring properties. As the landlord is under no obligation to match to other properties, the like-for-like offer was reasonable. The resident later agreed to this.
  8. In summary, it was reasonable that the landlord attempted to repair the windows initially. However, there was a minor delay and when the resident requested a wider survey, the landlord failed to attend in a reasonable timeframe. It is positive that both parties have now agreed to the like-for-like replacement.
  9. When addressing the complaint, the landlord offered compensation of £100 for distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. The landlord said this was for the impact on her during the repair period.
  10. Although the landlord did not acknowledge specific service failings, the compensation was proportionate. The amount offered is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge all its failings which caused the resident time, trouble and disappointment over a short duration. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress.

The resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it should acknowledge complaints at both stages within 3 working days. The landlord should provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement and the stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledgement. The policy says that the landlord should not exceed these timeframes “without good reason”.
  2. The landlord did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint, received on 1 November 2024, until 17 December 2024, some 33 working days later. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord.
  3. The landlord issued the stage 1 response 13 working days after the acknowledgement. Given the significant delay in acknowledging the complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure it issued the response within the timeframe set out in its policy. It failed to do so.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation on the day of receipt. However, it did not issue its response until 45 working days later. Given the content of the response, there is no reason that the landlord could not have provided this within the timeframe set out in its complaint policy. This is another service failing by the landlord.
  5. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the delays at both stages 1 and 2. It offered compensation of £125 for these combined failures. This offer was in line with Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for occasions where there have been landlord failings and delays which adversely affected the resident. The level of compensation was therefore sufficient given the circumstances of the case alongside its apology and commitment to learn lessons.  
  6. Considering the complaint handling failings identified and the landlord’s actions to put things right, the Ombudsman finds that it offered reasonable redress. The finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the landlord’s handling of the complaint was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were failings by the landlord which it acknowledged and offered compensation for in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for window replacements.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the total compensation amount of £225, made up of £100 (distress and inconvenience) and £125 (complaint handling), that it offered through the complaints process. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress decisions are made on the basis that these amounts are paid.
  2. The landlord should provide an update to the resident on when it will install the replacement windows at her property.