Peabody Trust (202506211)

Background

1. The resident moved in to the property in November 2023 and she reported damp and mould in her hallway, in January 2024. In March 2024, the landlord identified that the damp was caused by an issue with guttering. The guttering was repaired and between June and August 2024, it stripped back the hallway, replastered and redecorated. However, it failed to ensure the walls were dry, which meant damp and mould returned and the work needed redoing. The complaint was brought to us in May 2025 once all work had been completed, as the resident was unhappy with the level of compensation offered by the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reported water ingress, damp and mould.
3. We have also considered how the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord regarding its handling of reported water ingress, damp and mould.
5. There was reasonable redress offered regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

We have not made any orders.

Summary of reasons

6. While there were issues with the way the landlord handled the repairs needed to address the damp at the property, it acknowledged these failings and took steps to try and put things right by offering a reasonable amount of compensation to the resident.
7. The landlord did not adhere to its Complaints policy and there were delays addressing the complaint, but it offered compensation that sufficiently recognised the impact this had on the resident.

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. Our Spotlight on Damp and Mould report, It’s Not Lifestyle (October 2021) says landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions and should ensure that responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord has a Damp, Mould and Condensation policy (policy) which says it will provide a consistent and excellent service in response to these type of reports but it does not provide timescales for attending reports of damp.
9. The landlord has a Responsive Repairs policy which sets out how long it has to address certain repairs. However, it also does not specifically address damp, so it is not clear what timescales apply in cases like this. It explains that emergency repairs are when the integrity of the building is at risk for example but that was not the case here, so does not apply. If damp is treated as a routine repair, then that could take up to 28 calendar days to address and is not consistent with the need to take a zero tolerance and urgent approach. This is therefore something the landlord could be clearer on in its policies.
10. In this case, the resident reported an issue on 29 January 2024, and it took 22 calendar days for someone to attend. The only action taken was to clean the area, as the contractor identified the damp needed further investigation. It then took a further 21 calendar days for the landlord to establish that the damp was caused by an issue with the guttering from the flat above.
11. A repair was carried out to the guttering by June 2024, but a further repair was needed on 8 January 2025 as water was still seeping out. The fact it took this long, is not reflective of the landlord treating the damp as an urgent matter and amounts to a failing. In addition, a further significant issue arose, as a result of the landlord arranging for replastering and redecoration works to be done around July 2024, before the walls had fully dried out. This meant the work had to be redone and the resident was inconvenienced further. While the landlord acknowledged this failing when it responded to the complaint and took steps to put it right, remedial works were not fully addressed and completed for a total of 15 months. During this time the landlord’s communication was poor as the resident had to chase it for information on several occasions. The landlord’s records indicate that no one was actively monitoring the work or ensuring the resident was regularly updated.
12. There is no dispute that there has been poor service, as the landlord accepted there were failings. The only issue is the whether the compensation offered by the landlord sufficiently remedies the poor service identified. At stage 2, the landlord offered the resident £700 compensation for the delay and disruption the damp caused her over a long period of time. It then offered a further £800 compensation later once all further works were complete. It was positive that the landlord increased its offer later to recognise that after the stage 2 response was issued, the resident was caused further inconvenience having to wait several more months for the work associated with the damp to be completed. This certainly amounts to good practice,
13. The landlord acknowledged its failings and the £1,500 compensation offered was in line with its own guidance, as it reflected that overall, the resident suffered “serious disruption”. The amount offered is also in line with this Service’s Remedies guidance for findings of severe maladministration. As a result, the Ombudsman would have made the same or similar award in the circumstances and we therefore find that the landlord has made an offer which was reasonable and proportionate to resolve the complaint.

14. The landlord’s Complaints policy says it defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action. The resident’s email of 4 April 2024 was a clear expression of dissatisfaction. Therefore, the landlord should have recorded that as a complaint, acknowledged it within 5 working days and issued a response within a further 10 working days. It failed to do that and only suggested the resident may want to formalise a complaint on 15 April 2024, after being chased for a response.
15. As well as failing to comply with the terms of its Complaints policy by not ensuring a complaint was logged on 4 April 2024, the landlord also missed the deadline to respond at stage 1, as it issued its response 2 working days later than it should have. It then took the landlord over 3 months to acknowledge the resident escalating the complaint to stage 2, and it only did so after the resident chased it up at least 4 times.
16. The evidence shows the resident became increasingly frustrated by the landlord taking no action and having to be regularly chased for a response. When the landlord did eventually respond, it told her to expect a stage 2 response by 27 November 2024, but it then failed to adhere to that date, and again, had to be chased, which prompted the stage 2 response to be issued 2 days later.
17. There were issues with the landlord’s complaint handling from the outset. Over several months there are many examples of the resident chasing the landlord for a response to her complaint, and the landlord failing to respond. The resident’s expectations were not properly managed and the landlord’s communication throughout was poor, which meant she became more distressed with how long things were taking, as she felt she was being ignored.
18. The landlord’s Compensation and Remedies policy says where there has been a severe failure in its complaint handling, compensation of between £201 and £300 should be considered. There was an extensive failure by the landlord to follow it Complaints policy, which caused a significant impact on the complainant. This was recognised by the landlord when it responded at stage 2 and its offer of £250 compensation is in line not only with its own guidance, but also ours. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress on that basis.

Learning

19. The landlord ought to review its policies against our Spotlight on Damp and Mould report, It’s Not Lifestyle (October 2021) to ensure they reflect how cases of this nature should be addressed urgently. In particular, it considers making clear timeframes to attend damp reports in at least one of its policies.

Communication

20. The landlord ought to ensure all open/active jobs are monitored to ensure they are being actively progressed and residents kept updated. In addition, that when a resident chases for information, their correspondence is acknowledged and responded to within a reasonable period of time and in line with any published service level.