Peabody Trust (202452065)

Background

1. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord knows the resident runs a childminding business from the property. In January 2024 the resident reported a roof leak that meant water was entering a bedroom. The landlord noted in April 2024 that the resident asked for this job to be closed, as it was only a small leak. In August 2024 the resident reported cracks in the walls and the bedroom ceiling was falling down. The landlord attended to make the ceiling safe and recommended a surveyor inspect.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of repairs.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. There were significant delays and communication failures in the landlord’s handling of the repairs. It offered redress but this was not sufficient to put things right considering the extent of the failures and the impact on the resident.
7. There were delays and poor communication in the landlord’s handling of the stage 1 and 2 complaints. It acknowledged failure and offered redress at stage 1, but not at stage 2. The redress offered was insufficient considering the failures identified.

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.

8. The resident reported concerns about the condition of the roof since at least 2022. She also reported the dining room ceiling collapsed in August 2023. The scope of this investigation has covered events that occurred 12 months before the resident raised her formal complaint in November 2024. Anything that happened before November 2023 is considered for context but not formally assessed as part of this investigation.
9. The landlord has a legal obligation to repair the structure and exterior of the property in accordance with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This includes external walls, the roof and internal walls and ceilings.
10. Following the resident’s report of a roof leak on 15 January 2024, the landlord attended and identified scaffolding was needed. Before any works were completed, it closed the job in April 2024 with a note that this was at the resident’s request. Whether the resident requested this or not, the landlord should not have closed the job. It knew there were outstanding repairs in the property and had a legal obligation to resolve them. It should have contacted the resident to understand her reasons for wanting the job closed and worked with her to complete the required works. Its failure to do this contributed to the overall delay in it resolving the leak.
11. The resident reported on 27 August 2024 that the bedroom ceiling was falling down. The landlord’s repairs policy said emergency repairs are ones that need rapid response to safeguard the wellbeing of residents, or the structural stability and integrity of the property. Considering the ceiling was at risk of falling down, it was appropriate that the landlord raised an emergency repair to make this safe.
12. The landlord’s policy says it will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours. The evidence shows the landlord attended the same day. However, it has not provided evidence to show whether this was within the 4 hour target timescale. The lack of evidence means we cannot fully assess the landlord’s handling of this job, to determine whether it complied with its policy.
13. The operative who attended in August 2024 recommended a surveyor inspection due to the scale of the disrepair. The landlord did not do this until 6 months later, on 20 February 2025. This was too long and contributed to the overall delay in the landlord’s handling of the repairs. During the period of delay the resident chased the landlord on at least 6 occasions, including raising her stage 1 and 2 complaints. This was frustrating for her and left her feeling the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
14. In October 2024 the resident reported the bedroom ceiling was dangerous and about to fall. While the landlord was working to arrange a surveyor’s inspection, it should also have taken action to address the risk as an emergency repair. It did not do this and only arranged for the ceiling to be made safe following the inspection 4 months later, on the surveyor’s request. This was a failure that meant the resident was left living in an unsafe environment for months. This is particularly concerning as the landlord is aware the property is used for a childcare business.
15. The landlord’s record of the inspection completed in February 2025 noted the roof leak was “severe”. When the landlord closed the job for the leak in April 2024, it noted the resident said this was a small leak. Regardless of the severity of the leak, the landlord should have progressed the job and ensured a repair was completed to resolve it. Its failure to do so likely contributed to the leak worsening and becoming severe by the time it inspected in February 2025. This delay also contributed to the level of damage caused.
16. The landlord repaired the roof leak on 19 March 2025, 14 months after the resident first reported it. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete major repairs, including roofing works with scaffolding, within 60 calendar days. The landlord completed this repair in 430 days, significantly over the committed timescale. This equates to a delay of around 1 year. While the landlord noted the resident asked for the job to be closed in April 2024, this does not mitigate the failure as it should not have agreed to this. It should have taken steps to ensure the repair was completed in accordance with its committed timescale.
17. On 2 April 2025 the landlord noted the job for the internal works was cancelled because the resident had been rude. There is no evidence the landlord investigated this at the time or obtained specific details about what had happened to decide how to proceed. This was a failure. Where resident’s behave unreasonably, the landlord can take action to address this. In some circumstances, it may be understandable that this causes delays to works being completed. However, this does not remove the landlord’s legal obligation to complete repairs entirely. It needs to find a way to do these while also managing any inappropriate behaviour.
18. In this case, the information provided by the contractor was limited as it only said the resident had been ‘rude’. This alone was not sufficient justification for the job to be cancelled. The landlord should have taken action to investigate so it could respond appropriately and decide how to progress the works. It did not do this and it was only as a result of the stage 2 complaint, 5 months later, that the landlord progressed the works with another contractor.
19. In the stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident the internal works were still outstanding as its contractor had encountered some challenges within the property, which made it difficult to proceed safely with the works. This was untrue as there is no evidence the contractor raised safety concerns. It said the resident had been rude, but gave no further details about this. There is no evidence of any safety concerns being raised. Therefore, this was not reasonable mitigation for the delay in the landlord completing the repairs. It was unfair of the landlord to place blame on the resident for this without having obtained full facts of what had happened.
20. The resident has told us internal works to the bedroom were completed in December 2025. Considering the leak was repaired in March 2025, the landlord should have completed the internal works as a routine repair following this. Its policy says it will complete routine repairs within 28 days. The landlord completed these in around 9 months, significantly over the target timescale. Again, this is particularly concerning as the landlord is aware the resident uses the property to run a childcare business.
21. From at least December 2024 the resident has reported damp and mould. It is vital that landlords not only treat damp and mould, but also identify and resolve the underlying cause. It was reasonable that the roof leak and other external repairs identified during the inspection in February 2025 were the suspected cause of this.
22. In January 2025 the landlord raised a job to treat the mould. This was sensible to manage the spread, while it completed the repairs to address the underlying cause. It raised the job on 3 January 2025 and completed a mould treatment 25 days later, on 28 January 2025. This was in line with the 28 day committed timescale for routine repairs.
23. Considering the extent of the delays in the landlord completing works to address the suspected underlying cause of the damp and mould, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider other interim actions to treat the mould. This could have included further mould washes and installation of a dehumidifier. There is no evidence the landlord did this, which meant the resident was living in a damp and mouldy property for an extended period. This was particularly concerning as the landlord was aware there were children in the property.
24. The resident has told us there are outstanding internal and external works, including damp and mould. As part of our investigation, we have asked the landlord to confirm what works are outstanding. While it has provided some information, this does not include a detailed schedule of what works are outstanding and when these are expected to be completed. Therefore, we cannot be satisfied the landlord is fully aware of what the outstanding issues are or that it has a plan in place to resolve them.
25. In October 2025 the landlord noted structural issues had been identified and asked for a structural survey to be completed. The resident has said she also asked for this to be done due to cracks throughout the property. There is no evidence the landlord completed this or told the resident why it would not. Considering the extensive failures identified and lack of evidence that the landlord has fully assessed the issues, we order it to complete an independent structural survey to identify all outstanding issues. A written update to be sent to the resident confirming the outcome of this. This must include the issues identified and what works it will do to resolve them, with timescales for completion.
26. The landlord’s communication with the resident about the repairs has been poor. The records show she has had to chase for updates repeatedly. There was no oversight in the management of the repairs and the complaint cases were handed over to new staff members on multiple occasions. This lack of consistency contributed to the delays in the repairs being completed and meant the resident was not kept informed about what was happening. This led to her losing faith and trust in the landlord.
27. In May and June 2025 the landlord asked the resident what works were outstanding. This was understandably frustrating for her as the landlord had inspected the property in February 2025 and identified the works required. The resident responded and told the landlord to check its records, which is what it should have done before contacting her. The landlord should have better managed the repairs and provided proactive updates. Its failure to do so meant the resident was left not knowing what was happening and had to spend time and effort chasing updates.
28. The resident has asked the landlord on multiple occasions to complete works while she is away on holiday. She is required to give access for works to be done. It is reasonable that the landlord wants her, or a representative for her, in the property while the works are done. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord told the resident in the stage 2 response that it could not complete internal works while she was away.
29. In a text exchange in February 2025 the landlord asked for the resident’s key safe code and suggested it was fine if she was not there, saying “as long as there was access”. This understandably left the resident believing the landlord could do works while she was away. The resident asked again in March 2025 about the landlord doing works while she was away. It did not tell her it could not do this. It was only after further contact from her on 15 April 2025, when she said the landlord had not completed works while she was away, that it told her it was not standard practice for it to do this. This differed from the previous communication in February 2025. This inconsistency was frustrating for the resident.
30. The resident has told the landlord her personal belongings have been damaged because of the repairs issues. We cannot make a determination in respect of liability as this must be assessed via an insurance claim. What we have considered is how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damage, and whether this was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
31. The landlord’s complaints policy says it may not consider insurance claims, including damage to personal belongings, as part of its complaints process. Therefore, it was reasonable that it did not agree to pay compensation for the damaged items as part of its response to the complaint. The landlord told the resident in the stage 1 and 2 responses that she could make a claim on its liability insurance and provided a link for her to do so. This was reasonable and showed it had taken the resident’s reports of damage seriously. The resident has told us she made an insurance claim months ago but has not had an update from the landlord about this. We therefore order the landlord to tell the resident in writing the status of the claim and any next steps.
32. In the resident’s original complaint she said she could not use the bedroom because of the repairs. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses acknowledged there had been failure in its handling of the repairs. The stage 1 response confirmed its failure had resulted in the loss of use of the bedroom. The landlord’s compensation policy says, where a bedroom is deemed unusable, it will pay 20% of the weekly rent as compensation. While the landlord offered some compensation, it did not offer this for loss of use of the bedroom in accordance with its policy. This was a failure.
33. The landlord should have completed the roof repair within 60 calendar days from the first report. It then should have completed the internal works as a routine repair within 28 calendar days. This means the landlord should have completed all works to the bedroom by 12 April 2024.
34. While the landlord repaired the roof to stop the leak in March 2025, it did not complete the internal works to make the bedroom usable again until December 2025. This means the period of delay where the room was unusable was 88 weeks. We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident £2,824.16 compensation for loss of use of the bedroom (20% of the weekly rent for the 88 week period of delay).
35. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter, apologised and offered £150 compensation. Considering the number of failures identified, the extent of the delays and the impact on the resident, the redress offered is insufficient. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £900, inclusive of the £150 already offered. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures that had a significant impact and is reflective of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble the resident experienced as a result of the multiple, long term failures by the landlord.
36. The resident has asked for compensation for loss of earnings. We will not order compensation for this. However, we have considered this as part of our compensation offer for distress and inconvenience. The resident has also said the landlord’s failures have negatively affected her health and resulted in a personal injury. We cannot determine there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health or injury. This is a matter for a public liability insurance claim. We have considered the general distress and inconvenience the resident suffered as a result of the failures and awarded compensation in recognition of this.

37. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and within 20 working days at stage 2.
38. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 6 December 2024, 6 working days after the complaint was made. This was over the committed timescale by 1 working day, which was a minor delay and so not a failure. The landlord sent the stage 1 response 22 working days after the acknowledgement, more than double the committed timescale. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident about this during the period of delay or extended the response deadline. This left the resident uncertain on when she would receive the response.
39. The landlord’s complaints policy says complaints will be escalated to stage 2 on request if a resident remains unhappy with all or part of the complaint. As the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the compensation offered and asked for this to be reviewed, the landlord should have treated this as an escalation request. It failed to do so and even after further contacts from the resident in January, May, June and July 2025, the landlord did not escalate or acknowledge the stage 2 complaint. It was only after contact from us in August 2025 that it escalated the complaint, and further contact from the resident in September 2025, before it sent the response.
40. The landlord sent the stage 2 response in 166 working days, significantly over the 20 working day committed timescale. This equates to a delay of more than 23 weeks. This left the resident feeling the landlord was not taking the complaint seriously and further damaged her trust in it.
41. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of the stage 1 complaint only. It did not acknowledge any failure in its handling of the stage 2 complaint, despite the significant delay. This was disappointing for the resident. The landlord apologised for the failures at stage 1 and offered £50 compensation. Considering the failures identified at both stages, and in consultation with our remedies guidance, the redress offered was not proportionate and failed to put things right for the resident.
42. We find there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We order it to apologise to the resident and pay her £150 compensation, inclusive of the £50 already offered. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made some attempt to put things right.

Learning

43. Where the landlord is made aware of a leak, it should take action to resolve this. If a resident asks for the job to be closed before the leak is repaired, the landlord should not agree to this and should work with the resident to ensure the leak is resolved.
44. The landlord should investigate any concerns raised by its contractor about resident behaviour. The landlord should not cancel jobs without being satisfied that this is reasonable. Inappropriate behaviour by a resident does not remove the landlord’s legal responsibility to complete repairs. It should deal with the behaviour and find a way to complete the repairs safely.
45. Where the landlord identifies that its failure results in the loss of use of a room, it should consider compensation for this in accordance with its compensation policy.
46. Where there are failures in the landlord’s complaint handling, it should acknowledge these and offer appropriate redress.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

47. The landlord has not provided enough evidence for us to assess whether it attended an emergency repair, raised on 27 August 2025, in line with its policy committed timescale. It is not clear if this is because the evidence does not exist or it failed to provide this. The landlord should ensure it can evidence that it attended emergency repairs within the 4 hour target timescale. Where relevant, this evidence should be provided to us for assessment as part of our investigations.

Communication

48. The landlord should properly manage repairs and provide proactive updates to the resident. It should not rely on the resident chasing for updates.
49. The landlord should respond to all queries and concerns in a timely manner. It should be consistent in its communication.
50. The landlord should tell residents about any delays in its complaint handling so they know when to expect the response.