Peabody Trust (202453374)

Decision
Case ID	202453374
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	16 December 2025

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom flat located on the second floor of a wider building. The resident lives in the property with her daughter. Both the resident and their daughter have health conditions, and the daughter uses a wheelchair.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of repairs to windows in the property.
The landlord’s consideration of the household’s vulnerabilities and the suitability of the property.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent concerns while they were re-housed by the local authority.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to windows in the property.
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s consideration of the household’s vulnerabilities and the suitability of the property.
3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent concerns while they were re-housed by the local authority.
4. The landlord provided the resident with reasonable redress for its complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs to windows in the property.
1. The resident has experienced significant delays after the landlord committed to replacing the windows, and the damp and mould works are yet to occur.
The landlord’s consideration of the household’s vulnerabilities and the suitability of the property.
1. The landlord failed to adequately consider the vulnerabilities of both members of the household and its obligations under the Equality Act.
2. Reasonable adjustments have not been made to try and meet the household’s medical requirements.
3. The landlord has not followed through on commitments made about rehousing in its complaint responses.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent concerns while they were re-housed by the local authority.
1. The landlord told the resident to seek alternative accommodation with their local authority while repairs were ongoing. The landlord did not make any provisions around rental payments or bills during this process, and this resulted in the resident incurring costs for both properties.
The landlord’s complaints handling.
1. The landlord offered the resident compensation which was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure damp and mould repairs within the property are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident.	No later than 27 January 2026
2	Post work inspection Within 6 weeks of completing the damp and mould works the landlord is to conduct a post-work inspection. This inspection is to assess both the damp and mould works and the window replacements. A copy of the inspection report is to be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman. If any issues are identified during this inspection the landlord is to provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a schedule of works it will take to rectify the issues.	No later than 10 March 2026
3	Interim medical provisions Until a surveyor confirms that there is no damp or mould in the property, the landlord must outline the arrangements it will put in place to ensure the resident’s daughter is not exposed to mould spores.	No later than 27 January 2026
4	Occupational therapy order Within 4 weeks the landlord is to instruct an occupational therapist to assess the family’s medical needs, or it is to support the resident in making the application herself.	No later than 27 January 2026
5	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a member of the landlord’s senior leadership. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 January 2026
6	Review order Within 10 weeks the landlord is to conduct a review of the failings outlined by the Ombudsman. The landlord should produce a written report outlining how it aims to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future. Copies of this report are to be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman.	No later than 24 March 2026
7	In person meeting order Within 4 weeks the landlord is to meet with the resident in person to discuss the family’s medical needs and vulnerabilities. Within 4 weeks of this meeting the landlord is to: Make all reasonable efforts to identify alternative accommodation within its stock which better meets the family’s mobility needs, and the findings made during the 2023 banding assessment. If a property is identified, it is to be offered to the resident for her to consider. If no property is identified within 4 weeks, the landlord is to provide a detailed action plan around how it can support the resident in a move to a more suitable property. The action plan is to include: The landlord’s timescales The work it will do with third parties. How it will actively support the resident. Discuss and agree reasonable steps to assist with the administration and logistics of the resident moving out of temporary accommodation. Assign the resident a direct point of contact to assist with their housing requirements. This contact must have oversight from a senior member of staff.	No later than 24 February 2026
8	Consideration of reimbursement order Within 4 weeks the landlord is to contact the resident to request evidence of the cost of heating the original property while she was temporarily re-housed. Within 10 weeks the landlord must provide a written response to the resident. This response will set out the landlord’s position on the resident’s request that the arrears are written off and include its consideration for reimbursing the resident’s utility costs. The landlord must produce its response after considering: The findings of this report. The resident’s distress. That the resident followed the landlord’s advice. Its acknowledgement that the resident fell into arrears through no fault of her own.	No later than 24 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord is to pay the resident the compensation previously offered of £7000, if it is yet to do so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 January 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. The resident said: They had been telling the landlord for several years that window frames in the property were rotting and mouldy. Multiple surveyors had inspected the windows, but associated repairs had not been progressed. This caused them to feel ignored. In November 2024 their local authority had temporarily re-housed the family due to the issues with the window frames. Since moving into temporary accommodation, they had received conflicting messages about rent for the properties and who was responsible for the payments. This had led to a build-up of significant rental arrears, and the landlord had sent letters threatening eviction. The landlord had not offered them support during this process, and they felt it had not taken responsibility for any of the on-going issues. The complained of issues were having a significant impact on their family. The resident said she could not face the thought of dealing with significant debt while caring for her terminally ill child. They asked the landlord to produce a timetable for the window repairs, to outline who was responsible for the rent payments, and for a caseworker to be assigned to the case.
11 February 2025	The landlord sent its stage one complaint response which said: It upheld the resident’s complaint about the window repairs. It said there had been significant delays in it replacing the windows, and there had also been a lack of communication. It had asked its repairs department to progress replacing the windows. It said it would actively monitor the progress of this repair. Its payments team would review the resident’s ongoing rent issues. It offered the resident compensation of £200 for the delay in repairing the windows, and for the impact this had on the resident.
21 February 2025	The resident asked for their complaint to be escalated to stage 2 during a phone call.
17 April 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response which said: It apologised to the resident and said it recognised it had let the family down. It committed to ensuring the family had a comfortable and habitable home. It apologised that the windows had not been replaced. It had now asked contractors to measure up the property for new windows to be installed. It committed to keeping the resident updated about the repair. It said as the resident lived in a conservation area, before it manufactured the windows it would need to submit proposals to the local authority. It said this process can take around 12 weeks. It apologised for not acting promptly when it learned medical staff would not discharge the resident’s daughter from hospital due to the presence of damp and mould in the home. It said this was unacceptable and the child’s health should have been its top priority. It had instructed a member of its lettings team to contact the resident urgently about their housing needs. It had agreed to stop sending letters to the resident about rental arrears. Its complex case team had also agreed to contact the resident to discuss writing off the arrears once they had moved back into the home. It had made a referral to its wellbeing team on behalf of the resident. It apologised for delays the resident had experienced during stage 2 of their complaint. It offered the resident compensation of £6,500 for Its handling of the window repairs. Its lack of support when the resident moved into temporary accommodation. Its failure to understand the impact of its actions. It offered the resident compensation of £500 for its complaints handling. This included a failure to fully address the complained of issues at stage one, and for the delays at stage 2.
7 May 2025	The resident brought their complaint to us as they were dissatisfied with the progress made on their case.

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.

The compensation offered

Aside from the compensation offered around its complaints handling the landlord did not fully break down how the compensation should be divided across the various complained of issues. For the purposes of this investigation, we have assumed that the amount was intended to be broadly equal across the three areas. When considering whether the landlord’s offer of redress was reasonable, we have therefore divided the £6,500 equally across the three complained of areas, which works out as £2,167.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of repairs to windows in the property.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s repairs policy states that window repairs or renewals are classed as programmed repairs. It aims to complete programmed repairs within 60 days. The policy also says repairs can be prioritised if the resident is vulnerable.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy commits to investigating all reports of damp and mould, and to carry out all necessary associated repairs.
On 13 September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord about the sash windows in their property. The resident said that, due to her daughter’s medical condition, they could not live in a property where damp and mould were present. The resident said the window frames were rotten and contained mould. The landlord arranged for a damp and mould wash to occur.
A damp and mould wash would have helped to treat the mould already present. However, the landlord did not consider any arrangements for rehousing until it could confirm there was no damp or mould in the property while treatment was carried out. This approach did not address the root cause of the damp and mould, which was the rotting wooden frames, nor did it act to limit the resident’s daughter’s exposure to mould spores. As a result, the landlord’s actions were unlikely to fully meet the household’s medical needs. Given the household’s circumstances and the landlord’s policies, the landlord should have taken more substantive action.
On 18 October 2023 a surveyor attended the property and informed the landlord that all windows required replacement. Evidence indicates that following this no action was taken to replace the windows. On 28 December 2023, the resident reported that damp and mould in the property was worsening. The resident said that, due to their daughter’s medical condition, they had not lived in the property since May 2023, this was the first occasion we could identify that the landlord learned of this. These circumstances were serious, and the landlord should have treated the matter as a high priority. The failure to prioritise repairs despite clear evidence of vulnerability was contrary to the landlord’s policy and its legal obligations.
In January 2024 the landlord raised a repair to replace two windows and arranged for a surveyor to inspect the condition of the remaining windows. On 8 March 2024 a damp and mould inspection took place. The surveyor noted that the living room and bathroom window frames were rotting, wet, and had a smell consistent with mould. Further inspections followed.
On 8 August 2024 a member of staff rejected the costs for the window repairs and closed the repair. Evidence suggests the resident was not informed of this. On 16 August 2024 the resident chased the repair by email and provided further details about their daughter’s life-limiting medical condition. The landlord then reopened the repair.
A surveyor attended the property on 24 September 2024 and noted that it was a “moral decision” to assist the family and that the resident was “distraught” by the ongoing issues. The surveyor said the single pane windows were making the property cold and that, due to illness, the resident’s daughter was susceptible to cold. The surveyor said the landlord should try to make the child’s life as comfortable as possible. Despite this, the landlord did not act to address the repairs.
After the resident complained, the landlord said it would replace the windows. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised and offered compensation. As set out above, we have apportioned the total compensation amount that the landlord offered, and have used the assumption that it offered £2,167 in relation to the windows. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its failings and committed to putting things right. This amount was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for severe maladministration, which demonstrates that the landlord understood the significant impact its actions had on the family.
Following the conclusion of the complaints procedure, records indicate the landlord’s management of the works was poor. It took 55 days from sending its stage 2 response to approve the cost of the works. In September 2025, the landlord identified that it had incorrectly raised works and approved costs to replace seven windows, although there were nine windows in the property. This was an avoidable mistake. Considering the delays already experienced, the landlord should have managed the repair robustly to prevent further delay, and to put things right in line with its final complaint response.
At the time of writing, the landlord is completing the window replacements. It has said that once all windows are replaced, it will carry out damp and mould works. The resident has raised concerns that the landlord has not removed the internal sliding mechanisms from the old sash windows. The resident believes this could pose a risk as damp and mould may still be present.
We consider that maladministration occurred because the resident experienced delays after the complaints procedure concluded, therefore, the landlord has failed to put matters right within a reasonable period after its stage 2 response. Had the landlord not offered significant compensation at stage 2 and committed to completing the works, we would have considered a finding of severe maladministration.
We have not made orders for the landlord to pay additional compensation, as we consider that the amount previously offered was reasonable. We have however made orders for the landlord to:
1. Complete the damp and mould works.
2. Conduct a post-work inspection for the damp and mould works and for the window replacements.
3. The landlord is to make arrangements to ensure that the resident’s daughter is not exposed to mould spores in the property until a surveyor has determined that there is no damp and mould in the property.
4. Conduct a review of its actions to prevent similar failings occurring in the future.

Complaint	The landlord’s consideration of the household’s vulnerabilities and the suitability of the property.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s safeguarding policy says it will take a person, and family, centred approach when working with residents.
The landlord’s alternative accommodation policy says it can offer residents alternative accommodation when there is a health and safety risk, if there is a safeguarding risk or when a property requires extensive repairs. The landlord commits to providing residents with clear information about all available housing options, and to provide additional support for vulnerable residents. If the landlord is unable to re-house a resident within its own housing stock, it will work with local authorities and third party agencies to find alternative accommodation.
The landlord’s rehousing policy says any decision to permanently or temporarily re-house a resident will be made after an assessment by a surveyor, its repairs team or its neighbourhood team. This assessment will consider if residents should be removed while repairs are ongoing or if there are other extenuating circumstances. The landlord will prioritise moves where a resident has a medical condition and staying in the property could exacerbate the condition or lead to disability.
The Equality Act 2010 places legal obligations on social landlords to prevent discrimination based on protected characteristics. Under the act disability is a protected characteristic. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act, this can only be done by the courts. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties and followed its own related policies and procedures.
Information held by the landlord which has been shared with us outlines that:
1. The resident has asthma and lupus.
2. Both the resident and her daughter have mental health conditions.
3. The resident’s daughter has a heart and lung disease, this condition is life limiting and will not improve over time.
The landlord has told us that the resident has now been given a band A2 priority which means she is eligible for a 3-bedroom property, and she has been bidding for a property which meets these criteria. The resident has made a separate complaint about this banding assessment, and she has brought the second complaint to us. We have not considered the second complaint during this investigation, as there was ongoing administration required for the second complaint which meant it was not ready to investigate.
On 2 June 2023 the resident told the landlord that their daughter had a life limiting condition, and due to this condition, they could no longer use the communal stairs to access the property. Due to this, the resident asked to be transferred to a ground floor flat. In July 2023, the landlord assessed the household’s medical needs and assigned a B1 priority banding, noting that the family should be allocated a ground floor property.
In September 2023 the resident told the landlord that their daughter could not live in the property as the presence of damp and mould would negatively affect their health. The resident also said paramedics had advised that extracting the child from the property in an emergency would be challenging. The resident asked for advice and assistance in moving on medical grounds. The landlord’s notes indicate it said it would consider a management transfer, but there is no evidence this was progressed. The landlord did not complete an inspection to assess whether the family should be rehoused, this was not in line with its policies.
The circumstances indicated the resident was experiencing a highly distressing period and needed support. It was a shortcoming that the landlord did not act in a supportive manner by facilitating a move or discussing available housing options.
In December 2023 the resident told the landlord they were staying with relatives because the property was unsuitable for their child’s medical needs. Evidence does not show the landlord took any further action to support the resident after learning this.
On 29 April 2024 the resident asked the landlord to re-house the family due to the presence of damp and mould. The resident said social services and her daughter’s medical team had determined that she could not return to the property. The resident expressed that she just wanted to live with her daughter in a safe environment. The described circumstances would have been deeply distressing for the household, and the landlord should have recognised this and taken appropriate action.
Records show that on 2 May 2024 a supervisor advised the resident to ask the local authority for temporary rehousing. The landlord placed the responsibility for arranging temporary housing on the resident, and it did not arrange to rehouse the resident within its own stock, or contact the local authority on the family’s behalf. This was inappropriate as it was not in line with the landlord’s policies.
The resident has told us that they arranged the temporary housing directly with their local authority, and the landlord did not support them during this process. In November 2024 the resident moved into temporary accommodation, and they are still living in temporary accommodation. The resident has said this property is a studio flat, and it is not suitable for family life.
The resident has told us that her daughter uses a wheelchair, and in the original property there is not enough space to manoeuvre or store a wheelchair. She also told us that accessing the property is challenging as it is on the second floor of the communal building. The accessibility issues were raised by a surveyor in September 2024, but the landlord did not appear to fully consider, or take steps to address this issue. This is inappropriate, and it indicates the landlord has not given due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act.
Despite the landlord being aware of the daughter’s mobility challenges it did not offer advice around potential reasonable adjustments that could be made in the property. Additionally, it did not seek assistance from, or suggest the resident speak to, an occupational therapist. This was unreasonable in the circumstances. Regarding the accessibility issues the landlord has told us that there is a communal lift in the property which can be used for accessing the property.
In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised and acknowledged it had failed to act promptly once it was notified that the resident’s daughter could not return to the property. It said its actions were unacceptable and that its lettings team would contact the resident about ongoing issues and support them in finding permanent accommodation. The landlord also offered a significant amount of compensation.
It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its failings and offered compensation. However, its commitments did not go far enough. It did not provide clarity about how it would support the resident, when its lettings team would make contact, or what would be discussed. It also did not firmly commit to moving the resident to a suitable property. As such, the stage 2 response did not adequately resolve the complained of issues.
The resident has told us that since the landlord sent its stage 2 response it has not supported her to find alternative housing, and the phone call committed to at stage 2 has not occurred. The landlord has not directly responded to our enquiries around this phone call.
The failings outlined led to prolonged displacement, unsuitable temporary housing, and significant emotional distress, which are factors the Ombudsman considers when assessing severity. The landlord has apologised and offered significant compensation, but it has not taken effective steps to improve the resident’s situation or reduce the distress they are experiencing. Considering this we find maladministration occurred.
To address this, we have made orders for the landlord to:
1. Meet with the resident in person to discuss the family’s medical needs and vulnerabilities.
2. After this meeting the landlord is to make all reasonable efforts to identify alternative accommodation within its stock which better meets the family’s needs, and the banding assessment made in 2023. If a property is identified it is to be offered to the resident for her to consider. If a property is not identified the landlord is to provide a detailed action plan around how it can support the resident in identifying a more suitable property.
3. Discuss and agree reasonable steps it can take to assist with the administration and logistics of moving out of temporary accommodation.
4. Assign the resident a direct point of contact to assist with this process. This person should have ongoing senior oversight over the resident’s housing issues.
5. The landlord is to instruct an occupational therapist to assess the family’s needs, or it is to support the resident in making this application herself.
6. Conduct a review of this case to identify any changes or additional training required to ensure the mistakes identified by the Ombudsman are not repeated in the future.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent concerns while they were re-housed by the local authority.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s alternative accommodation policy says if a resident is rehoused, they will continue to pay rent and service charges for their original property instead of for the temporary home. If a resident sources their own alternative housing, then the landlord can consider reimbursing costs.
As noted earlier, the resident asked the landlord to rehouse them on several occasions. On 2 May 2024 the landlord advised the resident to contact the local authority for temporary rehousing. The resident was subsequently rehoused by the local authority in November 2024. There is no evidence the landlord discussed rent or other associated costs with the resident or the local authority.
The resident said that after they moved into temporary accommodation, she was charged rent for both properties. She said this resulted in significant rental arrears and that she had been threatened with eviction. In their complaint, the resident asked the landlord to write off the arrears.
It appears the rental issues occurred because the resident sought assistance directly from the local authority, rather than the landlord arranging the rehousing. Under the landlord’s policy, if it had arranged to temporarily house the resident then they would not have been charged dual rent. As the resident followed the landlord’s advice, it is unfair that its poor housing management impacted the resident financially.
The resident told us that while rehoused by the local authority, she paid for utilities in both properties. She said this was challenging because she wanted to keep the original property heated to prevent the damp and mould from worsening. The resident said that as she was temporarily housed, she was unable to collect winter fuel allowance for her original property to assist with heating costs. Again, it was unfair that the resident experienced financial difficulties due to the landlord’s poor housing management.
In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged that the resident had fallen into rental arrears through no fault of her own. It said it would stop sending eviction warning letters, and that its complex case team would contact the resident once they had returned to the property to discuss writing off the arrears. This response seemed to indicate that it was minded to cancel the arrears. However, the lack of a firm stance would have caused the resident distress and concern about their finances. As the landlord did not make a firm commitment, we are unable to fully assess if the landlord’s handling of this matter was reasonable in the circumstances.
To address this, we have ordered the landlord to request evidence from the resident around their heating costs. Within 10 weeks the landlord is to provide a written response to the resident. This response will outline its stance on the resident’s request that the arrears are written off, it is also to include its consideration for reimbursing the resident’s utility costs.
It was positive that the landlord identified its failings and offered considerable compensation. However, after considering the full circumstances we feel maladministration occurred as the landlord has not fully addressed the complaint, or outlined how and when it will be in a position to address the resident’s concerns.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling.
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its timeframe for responding to complaints. It will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days, and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of that acknowledgement. If the resident asks for their complaint to be escalated to stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the request within 5 working days, and provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of that acknowledgement.
The resident complained on 17 January 2025. Their complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on the same day. The landlord sent its stage one response 18 working days later, this was outside of the timescales in its policy. On 21 February 2025 the resident asked for their complaint to be escalated during a phone call, after this the landlord did not formally acknowledge the escalation request. The landlord sent its complaint response 40 working days later on 17 April 2025. This was outside of the timescales in the landlord’s policy.
In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the delays in its complaints handling. The landlord also acknowledged that its stage one response was not sufficiently detailed. To address this the landlord offered the resident £500 in compensation. We consider this, alongside the landlord’s apology, to be appropriate in the circumstances. Therefore, we consider the landlord provided the resident with reasonable redress.

Learning

During our investigation we identified areas which require improvement.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping around the window repairs was poor. The repair was closed without the resident being notified, and there were frequently misunderstandings around if the windows required repairing or replacing. The landlord should learn from this and improve the quality of its repair records.

Communication

The communication we observed from the landlord required improvement. The resident frequently chased the landlord for updates. Additionally, the landlord was unclear in its complaint responses around how it would address the complained of issues.
The landlord should have identified that the resident was vulnerable and required additional support. The resident’s needs could have been better met if the landlord communicated with the resident in a manner which was regular, detailed and sympathetic in tone.