Peabody Trust (202448157)

Background

1. The resident reported a reoccurrence of damp and mould, just prior to a gas leak in the property, in February 2025. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s actions in addressing both matters.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould reports.
   2. A gas leak.
   3. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould reports.
4. There was also maladministration in its handling of the gas leak.
5. The landlord provided reasonable redress for its handing of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord addressed initial concerns about damp and mould in line with its policy but failed to act on the significant findings identified as a result of the inspection it carried out during the complaint period.
   2. The landlord resolved the gas leak in a reasonable manner. However, its investigation into the cause of the leak was flawed, leading to it saying the resident was responsible for the fault.
   3. There was a missed opportunity by the landlord to identify its failings during the complaint period, causing the resident unnecessary time and trouble before it acknowledged its errors.
   4. There were delays at both stages of the complaint process but the landlord provided sufficient redress for these.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

7. The landlord’s repair policy says that it should carry out ‘next available’ repairs within 28 calendar days and any complex or programmed damp works within 60 calendar days.
8. Throughout the complaint, the resident disputed the landlord’s claim that, prior to February 2025, he had not reported damp and mould since it completed works in July 2022. The resident maintained that he made reports during that time. We did not receive any evidence of reports between July 2022 and February 2025. On this basis, we have assessed the landlord’s actions after the report on 7 February 2025 and cannot conclude that there were recent reports from the resident prior to that.
9. After the resident reported damp and mould on 7 February 2025, the landlord attended and completed a mould wash treatment by 17 February 2025. The landlord took reasonable steps to treat the mould within the timeframe set out in its policy.
10. Within the stage 1 complaint, the resident provided photographs showing mould growth within the property. The full extent of the problem is not entirely clear but the photographs provide enough reason for further investigation by the landlord.
11. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord failed to acknowledge the evidence provided by the resident and focused on its completion of the repair in February 2025. The landlord’s response directed the resident to make a new report if he was still experiencing damp and mould, ignoring the evidence of further problems he had already offered. This was a failed opportunity to show a proactive approach to managing a damp and mould. It likely delayed the start of any required works to further treat or diagnose the problem.
12. The landlord carried out further mould removal works on 17 May 2025. It is not clear whether these works began due to the complaint, or because of a further report from the resident. Nevertheless, given that the resident again made it aware of mould in the property on 1 April 2025, the landlord did not complete these works within the timeframe set out in its repair policy. The works order noted that the operative did not complete all required works as the resident had refused permission to complete them.
13. On 5 June 2025, an independent damp and mould survey took place. The resident recently provided a copy of this report, apparently after having to make an information request to the landlord. Despite our request for evidence, the landlord did not provide a copy of this report to us. This demonstrates a shortcoming in the landlord’s record keeping.
14. The surveyor recommended a significant number of works based on their findings. Within the report, the surveyor says the following:
    1. It suggests a review to bring the property to a better improved standard.
    2. It references constant patch work with “nothing done to last”.
    3. Ceilings had wet patches, water stains and dampness.
    4. Areas were still showing as wet with continued water ingress.
15. Within its stage 2 response in July 2025, the landlord failed to make any reference to the works carried out in May 2025, or the June 2025 damp and mould survey and its findings. The landlord focused on the completed works in February 2025 and proposed no further actions related to the damp and mould, despite the significant findings in the very recent survey. This lack of acknowledgement shows either a lack of joined up working within the landlord, or a lack of urgency or desire to complete the required works.
16. We have not had sight of any evidence of the landlord acting on the findings of the survey. In view of this, we will make an order for the landlord to provide a schedule of works for the required repairs.
17. Having considered the failings identified in this report and the adverse impact on the resident, with significant repairs still to be arranged by the landlord, we make a finding of maladministration in its handling of damp and mould reports. We have ordered £200 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the landlord’s missed opportunities in April 2025 and June-July 2025.

18. The landlord identified the gas leak at the property on 21 February 2025 when carrying out works to the boiler. It attended later that day to make the gas supply safe. It disconnected the gas supply and provided portable heaters as the boiler was not in use. This was a reasonable response by the landlord.
19. The landlord said it attempted to attend on 24 February 2025 and 26 February 2025 to reinstate the supply and carry out a fumes investigation but noted there was no access. It did not provide records of this but the resident did not dispute its claims in his complaint escalation.
20. The landlord could have been more proactive in attending to carry out the test and reinstating of the supply. It took 13 days from the day that it disconnected the supply. During this time, the resident was without heating and hot water. Although the landlord did provide heaters to reduce that impact, this still likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord was apparently not pro-active between 26 February 2025 and 6 March 2025.
21. Throughout the complaint, the landlord insisted that it was not liable for the gas leak as it said the resident had installed a gas cooker which caused the leak. However, in a recent email to the resident, dated 23 October 2025, the landlord conceded that it was incorrect and that it had capped the supply prior to him moving in and it fitted an electric oven. This is a significant failing in both the landlord’s record keeping and its investigation of the cause of the gas leak.
22. Across both stages of the complaint, the landlord disputed liability for the gas leak. It did not offer any compensation for this issue, based on its incorrect position. In view of the inaccuracy of its records and its findings, we are of the view that the landlord should offer compensation.
23. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will offer £3 for each day a resident is without heating (after the first 24 hours). The policy says that it will offer £1 per day for each resident for a loss of hot water (after the first 24 hours). The resident was without heating and hot water for 13 days, so the landlord should provide compensation for 12 days. This equates to £36 for the heating and £24 for the hot water, a total payment of £60 The landlord failed to provide evidence of the tenancy, showing the number of people on it, so this amount is based on the resident and his brother occupying the property.
24. Within its complaint response, the landlord addressed the resident’s request for compensation for personal injury, despite claiming it was not liable. The landlord directed the resident to make a personal injury claim through its insurer if he felt the landlord was liable. Although we do not comment on any personal injury claim, it was appropriate for the landlord to signpost in this way.
25. In summary, the landlord acted reasonably in making the supply safe following the identification of the gas leak. The landlord’s subsequent investigation into the cause of the leak was flawed and led to it saying that the resident was responsible. It maintained this position through the entire complaint process, despite having the required information to make the correct findings during that period. The resident has endured further time and trouble in getting the landlord to continue its investigation and eventually accept it was incorrect. In view of this, we make a finding of maladministration in its handling of the gas leak and have awarded compensation for the adverse impact caused to the resident.

26. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code. The policy adds that the landlord can extend the time to provide a response but it should make the resident aware of it and the extension should be no longer than 10 working days.
27. The landlord failed to provide an acknowledgement of the stage 1 complaint and its response took 21 working days. There was no update to the resident to inform him of the delay. The landlord failed to adequately manage the stage 1 complaint.
28. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation after 20 working days and provided its response after 44 working days. These were unreasonable delays that failed to meet its own policy timeframes.
29. The landlord’s investigations at both stages of the complaint were factually incorrect, as detailed in the assessment of the damp and mould and gas leak issues above. The landlord failed to take the opportunity to correct its findings from stage 1, despite the resident providing clear evidence within his escalation that questioned its initial findings.
30. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the failings in its handling of the complaint due to the time taken for it to respond at both stages. It offered £100 compensation for the late responses. This amount was proportionate and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where failings had an adverse impact on the resident. On this basis, we make a reasonable redress finding in respect of the complaint handling.

Learning

Damp and mould

31. The landlord should have systems and procedures in place to act on the findings of damp and mould surveys quickly, putting in place a schedule of works where necessary to limit the ongoing impact on the resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord should have systems and procedures in place to maintain accurate records relating to gas safety checks, to ensure it can make accurate assessments of potential causes of gas leaks.

Communication

33. The landlord should ensure that complaint responses encompass all elements of a complaint with a full investigation at stage 2 where the resident has disputed the accuracy of the stage 1 response.