Peabody Trust (202451888)

Background

1. The property is a 1-bedroom maisonette in a block. It has a bathroom in the basement and a further bathroom on the upper floor. It has a communal front door and a private back door that leads to the garden. The resident raised concerns that the landlord delayed in addressing repairs to these areas.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to:
   1. Damp and mould in the basement bathroom.
   2. The upstairs bathroom window and back door.
   3. A bedroom radiator.
   4. External communal areas.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs.
   2. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. We found that the landlord:
   1. Failed to complete the outstanding repairs in line with its repairs policy, provide clear updates, or fully resolve the issues despite offering compensation.
   2. Failed to follow its complaint policy, address all issues, or provide reasonable redress despite acknowledging delays and offering compensation.

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.

6. The resident raised multiple concerns in her complaint, some of which relate to issues that have been ongoing for several years, including damp and mould in the bathroom. Our investigation focuses on the period from April 2024 to the end of the complaints procedure in March 2025. This timeframe reflects the events that directly led to the complaint and means the landlord had fair opportunity to respond to the specific concerns raised during that time.
7. We have considered each aspect of the resident’s repairs complaint below.

Damp and mould in the basement bathroom

8. In line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS), the landlord has an obligation to address hazards and risks within its properties, including the presence of damp and mould. When assessing reports of damp and mould, we expect to see evidence that the landlord completed a damp assessment, using professional tools, to establish the underlying cause of the issues, and the location of defects that could contribute to the problem. It should assess all possible causes of damp, including leaks, rising damp, penetrating damp, and condensation. This is to have a clear understanding of the problem to provide a resolution within a reasonable timescale.
9. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould (2021) also highlighted the need for timely responses. The report set out that landlords should recognise that damp and mould can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of residents. They should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case. They should set these out clearly to the resident so their expectations can be managed.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy classes damp works as major repairs. It aims to complete these within 60 calendar days.
11. The resident reported damp and a possible leak in the basement bathroom on 12 April 2024. The landlord attended on 9 May 2024 and found no leak, but confirmed damp was present. It completed a leak detection survey on 28 June 2024 and found that there was evidence of rising damp and issues with the tanking provisions. While its actions were slightly outside the timescales set in its repairs policy, these were reasonable steps to diagnose the damp and mould.
12. After the June 2024 survey, the evidence shows the landlord instructed its contractor to start damp works on 1 August 2024. However, by the end of October 2024, the repairs had not progressed. On 16 December 2024, the landlord closed the damp job because the resident was away on holiday. However, there is no evidence it discussed this with her, informed her of the decision, or arranged a new date for the works. Closing the job at this stage was unreasonable, as the issue remained unresolved and repairs were still outstanding. This likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience, and she had to chase the landlord for updates.
13. In its stage 1 response on 7 January 2025, it was reasonable for the landlord to uphold the complaint. It apologised for its poor communication, unreasonable delays, raised a new job for the damp works and said it would keep the resident updated as the works progressed. It also agreed to refund parking costs the resident incurred during the contractor’s visit in June 2024. While it could have provided clearer next steps, the landlord appropriately took responsibility for the delays and poor communication and offered compensation.
14. Despite the landlord’s assurances in its stage 1 response, it did not keep the resident updated on the damp works. It visited the property on 21 January 2025 to assess the bathroom damp, but the resident declined the works as the landlord had not explained what the visit involved. It was reasonable for her to expect clear communication and notice. The lack of a clear plan and poor communication likely caused distress and inconvenience.
15. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 March 2025. It did not address the resident’s concerns about the bathroom damp and mould. It did not provide a repair plan, timescale, or follow-up actions to her. It also did not respond to the resident’s concerns about it closing the job in December 2024 or the delays in contractor coordination. This was not reasonable. The resident had clearly raised concerns about the ongoing issue, and the landlord did not show that it had taken steps to resolve it or learn from the complaint.
16. The resident has since informed this Service that work to resolve the damp is now underway and that the landlord has moved her into temporary accommodation. While this progress is positive, it took approximately 18 months to begin the work, far exceeding the landlord’s 60-day policy timescale. By the end of the complaint process, the issue had been ongoing for nearly a year, and the landlord’s stage 2 response did not address the matter, show steps to put things right or learn from the complaint. These delays and poor management caused the resident distress and inconvenience. For these reasons, we have made a finding of maladministration.
17. We have ordered £600 compensation for the landlord’s failings in its handling the damp and mould repairs to the basement bathroom which caused the resident distress and inconvenience. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where a landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment caused, and where its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.

Upstairs bathroom window and back door

18. The landlord’s repairs policy classes window and door replacements as major repairs. It aims to complete these within 60 calendar days.
19. On 4 April 2024, the resident reported that the upstairs bathroom window and back door were rotten and needed replacing. The landlord tried to attend on 19 April 2024 but could not gain access. It returned on 22 May 2024 and recorded that both items required replacement. A technical inspection on 19 July 2024 confirmed that the back door frame was rotting and needed replacing. However, there is no evidence that the landlord assessed the bathroom window during this inspection or acted on the earlier recommendations. The lack of action on the window likely caused further distress and inconvenience for the resident, who continued to wait for the landlord to resolve the matter.
20. The landlord replaced the back door frame in November 2024. This was significantly outside of the 60-day timescale set out in its policy. In her complaint, the resident said that it had missed appointments to replace the back door frame on 18 September, 27 September, and 17 October 2024 and had caused damaged to her property during the November repair. She added that it had not resolved the back door repair as there were gaps in the door frame that made it difficult to heat the property. She also said that it had still not replaced the bathroom window.
21. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise in its January 2025 stage 1 response for not completing the bathroom window replacement and to arrange a further inspection. It also acknowledged the missed appointments and offered compensation in line with its policy, which provides £10 for each missed appointment.
22. However, it did not respond to the resident’s concerns about the damage caused during back door repair works. This likely caused frustration and inconvenience for the resident who had to raise the issue again through the complaint process.
23. After its stage 1 response, the landlord did not visit the property on 7 January 2025 as planned. Its records show it decided the visit was unnecessary because it had already carried out a survey in July 2024. However, it did not tell the resident about its decision, and not attending without notice was unreasonable. This was also inconsistent with its stage 1 response, which said it had not inspected the bathroom window. Its July 2024 survey record also confirms it had not inspected the window. The lack of communication and extra delay likely caused frustration and inconvenience.
24. In its stage 2 response on 17 March 2025, the landlord said its surveyor had visited on 14 March to assess the back door and that it was waiting for the report. However, it gave the resident no update on the bathroom window repair and did not fully explain why it missed the appointment on 7 January 2025. This was a failing, particularly given her earlier complaint and its commitment to keep her informed. Its lack of updates likely left the resident uncertain about when it would resolve the issues and whether it had taken her concerns seriously.
25. The resident has since informed this Service that the landlord has replaced the back door and bathroom window around September 2025. While it is positive that it has now resolved the repairs, this was around 18 months after the resident’s initial reports and more than 6 months after the stage 2 response. These delays were well outside the landlord’s repair timescales and followed repeated complaints and later assurances. The delay likely caused ongoing distress and inconvenience to the resident, especially as the property reportedly remained cold and difficult to heat during this time. For these reasons, we have made a finding of maladministration.
26. We have ordered £500 compensation for the landlord’s failings and delays in handling repairs to the upstairs bathroom window and back door which caused the resident distress and inconvenience. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where a landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment caused, and where its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.

Replacement radiator

27. The landlord’s repairs policy says it should complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days. The resident raised the issue of the radiator in her complaint on 22 October 2024. In its stage 1 response, it said it found no record of a repair request but raised a new job and booked an appointment for 7 January 2025.
28. On 7 January 2025, the landlord recorded that the radiator needed replacing but there is no evidence that it progressed this repair. The resident raised further concerns about heating in her stage 2 escalation, but the landlord did not address this in its final response. Its failure to respond to ongoing concerns likely caused continued distress and uncertainty, particularly as the heating issue affected the resident’s ability to keep the property warm during colder months.
29. The resident has since told this Service that, more than a year after first reporting the problem, the landlord has not replaced the radiator in the bedroom. This delay is a failing that has likely caused her distress, inconvenience, and frustration. For this reason, we have made a finding of maladministration.
30. We have ordered £250 compensation for the landlord’s delays in replacing the bedroom radiator. This amount reflects our remedies guidance for situations where a landlord made some effort to resolve the issue but did not fully address the impact on the resident, and where its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.

External communal areas

31. As part of her complaint, the resident raised concerns about outstanding external decoration works and a damaged communal front door. She said that when the landlord attended in November 2024, it only painted the bay windowsills and did not complete the other works.
32. In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed that a survey had taken place in July 2024 and that it had completed external front bay window decorations. It acknowledged the need for further repairs and booked a technical inspection for January 2025 to assess the front door. This was a reasonable response and showed the landlord was taking steps to investigate and plan the necessary works.
33. However, the landlord did not attend the January 2025 appointment it had committed to. In its stage 2 response, it said it had arranged another inspection, which showed some effort to resolve the issue. However, it did not fully explain why it missed the January visit or give a clear update on progress. This lack of follow-through and communication likely caused further frustration and uncertainty for the resident.
34. The landlord has provided a copy of the works it had raised in April 2025 after it received its surveyor’s report. This included repairs to the render, painting and front door. Its repairs policy says it should complete major external works within 60 calendar days. The resident has informed this Service that it completed some work around October 2025, but the standard was poor, some external repairs remain outstanding, and the front door still has gaps that allow draughts and mice. This significant delay and poor quality has likely caused the resident inconvenience and frustration.
35. Overall, the landlord failed to complete external decoration works and address the damaged communal front door within its policy timescales, despite repeated commitments and inspections. The delays and lack of clear communication likely caused the resident frustration and unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing the matter. In recognition of this, we order £200 compensation. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance where a landlord made some effort to resolve the issue but did not fully address the impact on the resident and where its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.

Conclusion

36. Overall, the landlord failed to complete various internal and external repairs in line with its own policies and did not provide clear updates or explanations for missed appointments and changes to planned inspections. While the landlord offered £540 in compensation, with an additional £5.20 for the car parking refund, it did not fully address all the issues raised or demonstrate that it had learned from the complaint.
37. We have ordered the landlord to pay £1,550 in compensation for the failings in its handling of the repairs that resulted in distress, inconvenience and delays for the resident. This inclusive of the £540 offered through its complaints process. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord that adversely affected the resident.

38. 1.          It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days, and respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
    2.          It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the escalation request.
39. The landlord accepted that there were delays in responding to the resident’s complaints. The resident raised her complaint on 22 October 2024, but the landlord did not issue its stage 1 response until 7 January 2025, which was 52 working days later. She escalated her complaint on 13 January 2025, and the stage 2 response was issued on 17 March 2025, after 45 working days. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the delays and offer compensation to address the impact on the resident.
40. However, landlords must, in line with our Complaint Handling Code, address every part of a resident’s complaint, give clear reasons for their decisions, and explain what actions they will take, when, and how they will follow through. In her stage 1 complaint on 22 October 2024, the resident raised concerns about poor coordination between the landlord and contractors, which caused missed appointments and delays. While it offered £40 compensation for the missed appointments, it did not respond to this issue, explain the cause, or show it had investigated.
41. On 16 December 2024, the resident asked the landlord to add concerns about poor workmanship and mess from kitchen door frame repairs to her existing complaint. In her escalation request on 13 January 2025, she also made a subject access request for all damp-related records since 2015. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged these concerns or responded to them in its complaint replies.
42. In view of the above, the level of compensation is not proportionate to put right the impact of its failings on the resident. We award an additional £50 in compensation for the failings that resulted in inconvenience and additional delays for the resident. This is in addition to the £150 offered through its complaints process. This reflects the time and trouble caused to the resident by the additional complaint handling failings we have identified.

Learning

     Communication

43. The resident raised multiple concerns about what actions the landlord was taking in response to her reports of outstanding repairs. The landlord could reflect on these and consider any learning and staff training needs to ensure repairs are progressed within its repairs policy timescales.

    Complaint handling

44. This investigation has highlighted that the landlord did not fully address all the elements of the resident’s complaint. The landlord could reflect on this and consider any learning and staff training needs.

     Knowledge information management (record keeping)

45. The landlord’s repair logs were often unclear about what work was completed under each repair heading. The landlord could reflect on how to ensure its records are accurate and detailed. It may review guidance we have published on knowledge and information management and consider any learning.