Peabody Trust (202500627)

Decision
Case ID	202500627
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	09 June 2026

Background

The resident complained that the landlord had not acted on her reports about an issue with movement and cracks in the front and rear of the property.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of structural issues.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. structural issues
2. the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Structural issues

There were avoidable delays in the landlord taking action following the resident’s initial report of structural concerns. It has not communicated well with her regarding the outcome of the monitoring and its liaison with the builder. It has also not kept her informed about any likely timeframes. It apologised for its initial lack of communication and offered some compensation at stage 2 of the complaint process. However, this did not adequately reflect the impact of the failures, including the frustration and inconvenience experienced by the resident.

Complaint handling

There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling including a significant delay in acknowledging the stage 2 escalation request. The landlord failed to acknowledge this in its complaint responses. Although it acknowledged a delay in providing the stage 1 complaint response and offered some compensation, this was insufficient to remedy the situation.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: a manager provides the apology 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 07 July 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 made up as follows: £500 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of structural issues. £100 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. The landlord must provide documentary evidence that it has paid this directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 07 July 2026
3	The landlord must provide a written report regarding the outcome of the movement monitoring it has undertaken over the past 13 months. If this identifies that work to the property is necessary the report must also include a timed implementation plan to complete this and a named contact for the resident to liaise with. The report must be provided to the resident and us by the due date.	No later than 21 July 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If further work is needed and a decant is required the landlord should ensure that the location of the resident’s work is considered when provision of any temporary accommodation is discussed.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 January 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said that: she had reported an issue with movement and cracks in the property on 15 November 2024 on 19 December 2024 she had called it to ask for an update she emailed its buildings insurance team and neighbourhood manager on 21 December 2024 it had taken no action following her reports she was in the process of selling the property and the buyer’s surveyor had confirmed “a shift at both the front and rear movement joints” it was also affecting her neighbour’s property she wanted it to arrange for a structural engineer to visit the property and assess the extent of the movement and a clear timeline for the next steps.
15 January 2025	The landlord acknowledged receipt of the stage 1 complaint.
18 February 2025	The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It said that: it had opened a case when she reported the issue on 15 November 2024 but cancelled it as there had been no repair or survey completed previously it had now raised a request for a surveyor to attend once the survey was complete it would pass the case to its latent defects team if the survey confirmed a fault the builder would be responsible for rectifying the issue it could not give a timeframe for resolving the issue it upheld her complaint due to its failure to raise a survey request and to communicate its procedure it offered £100 compensation comprising £75 for her time and trouble due to the delay in raising a survey request and lack of communication, and £25 for the delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint.
18 February 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
7 May 2025	The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. It said that: the latent defects team had visited the property on 29 April 2025 and reported that currently there were no significant or concerning internal or external cracks the only issue currently noted was expansion of the movement joints at the front and rear of the property but the builder’s structural engineers thought this was due to movement occurring in the adjoining property the latent defects team would continue to monitor the structural concerns and would “be in contact” to provide updates and anticipated timeframes it would monitor the issue for 1 year, however, if it detected any significant movement in the next 2 months the monitoring process would stop and appropriate remedial measures would be implemented it increased the compensation offer to £150.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In June 2026 the resident advised us that the landlord had not updated her about the outcome of the structural monitoring. However, she said that she could see that the cracks were getting wider and her property was separating from the neighbour’s. She had tried to sell the property again but the sale had fallen through due to the structural concerns. She now has a new job with over a 2-hour commute and therefore being unable to sell the property was a major issue for her. She would like the landlord to ensure that the work is completed as soon as possible, preferably during the summer months. If she is decanted, she would like any temporary accommodation offered to be closer to her work.

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.

Complaint	Structural issues
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord acknowledged that the resident first reported the issue on 15 November 2024 but said that it had cancelled the job without informing her. This error cost her considerable time and trouble calling and emailing it 3 further times before logging a complaint.
The resident was in the process of selling the property at the time of her request but the sale fell through. While we cannot definitively say that the sale would not have fallen through for another reason,the landlord’s lack of response to her queries caused her further distress at an already difficult time.
In the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that it would pass the issue to its latent defects team. However, in an internal email written over 2 months later, this team said that they were unaware of the issue in the resident’s property and only aware of a problem with the neighbouring property. This delay in dealing with the issue at the resident’s property caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
In the stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that it would monitor the issue for 12 months. We asked the landlord for an update regarding this but it did not provide one. The resident has advised that she has not received regular updates from the latent defects team and its involvement with the builder as promised in the stage 2 complaint response. This lack of communication has caused further distress, particularly considering her need to move.
The landlord offered £150 compensation in total to reflect the time and trouble caused. Our compensation guidance says that payments of up to £600 are appropriate where there was a failing that adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the full detriment caused. In ordering a payment of £500 compensation we have considered the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will log complaints within 5 working days of receipt and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. This is in line with our complaint handling code. However, in this case it took 9 working days to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint and 25 working days to provide a response. We have seen no evidence that the landlord asked the resident for a time extension. This delay and failure to follow its policy meant that the resident was waiting longer for a resolution. It also delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
The landlord then took 40 days to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint. Furthermore, the landlord did not provide us with a copy of the stage 2 escalation request. This is concerning as it shows a record keeping issue which may have hampered our ability to complete a thorough investigation had the resident not provided us with a copy.
This unacceptably long delay cost the resident time and trouble because she contacted the landlord to find out if it had escalated the complaint. In response the landlord said that it did not know how long it would take to provide a response because it currently had a “high influx of complaints”. Immediately after receiving this email the resident then took further time and trouble contacting us for advice.
The landlord’s policy also says that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement. In this case it took 22 working days. Although this delay was not significant, it compounded the issue when added to the other complaint handling delays.
The landlord offered the resident £25 compensation at stage 1 for the delayed stage 1 complaint. At stage 2 it increased the overall compensation offer but did not specify how much of this was to reflect its complaint handling failures. Our compensation guidance says that payments of up to £100 are appropriate to put right a complaint handling failure which adversely affected the resident. In ordering £100 we have considered the time, trouble, and distress caused by the delays.

Learning

The landlord should review how it processes requests like those in this case. To include why it cancelled a job without escalating the matter elsewhere and why the latent defects team were not aware of the issue at an earlier stage.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord failed to provide a copy of the stage 2 escalation request to us, this highlighted a record keeping issue.

Communication

The landlord has not kept the resident updated about the ongoing monitoring of the structural issue as promised.