Peabody Trust (202513471)

Background

1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since 2019. She suffers from severe depression and anxiety. For clarity, this report refers to both the resident and her representatives as “the resident”, except for when it is necessary to clarify.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a pest infestation.
   2. Repair requests.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
5. There was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests.
6. There was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of a pest infestation

7. The landlord failed to follow up on the recommendations of its contractors to carry out pest proofing works. It did not consider its obligations in line with HHSRS to assess potential hazards. It failed to follow its own pest control policy and it failed to recognise the urgency of the repair and impact it had on the resident. The pest proofing works remained outstanding when the resident brought her complaint to us, and she reports ongoing issues. These failures caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.

The handling of repairs

8. There were significant delays in the landlord responding to a boiler repair which left the resident without heating or hot water for a considerable period of time. It failed to respond within its own repair timescales. It did not consider its obligations to assess hazards in line with HHSRS guidance. It failed to communicate repair delays to the resident. These failures caused distress, inconvenience, and frustration, to the resident who reported living in a cold property and reported that she had to boil water in pots and pans for her and her son to wash.

The landlord’s complaint handling

9. The landlord delayed in acknowledging and providing complaint responses at both stages. It failed to effectively use its complaints process to identify and respond to urgent repairs. Its assessment of compensation was not consistent, and its final offer did not reflect the impact on the resident. It also failed to follow up on agreed actions to resolve the complaint. These failures caused the resident time, trouble, and inconvenience.

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.

What we have not looked at and why

10. The evidence indicates that the pest infestation has been a long-standing issue for the resident and she brought a previous disrepair claim against the landlord. She reported to her MP that the issues began in 2020.
11. Based on the evidence provided to us, the landlord was on notice of a pest infestation in the property since 5 January 2024 when a pest control contractor surveyed the property and made recommendations to address the issue. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from 5 January 2024 onwards.
12. When the resident brought her complaint to us, she reported that the pest infestation was an outstanding issue in her home. This investigation has considered events up until 10 December 2025, when the resident raised a further complaint about its handling of her reports of pests. Should the resident remain unhappy with events after 10 December 2025, she has the option to bring her further complaint through the landlord’s complaint procedure, and if she remains dissatisfied with the response, she can bring her complaint to us for further consideration.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.

13. The landlord’s pest control policy states that it will “investigate all pest infestations in our care and supported housing properties, with proofing and prevention measures in communal areas and/or individual units where required”. It further states that it will “take reasonably prompt action to manage pest infestations for which we are responsible for.”
14. It is not disputed that there were failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation. In its complaint responses it accepted that the rodent infestation had been ongoing and severely impacted the condition of the residents home. As a resolution at stage 2, it said it would begin all outstanding repairs, including pest control works, and offered £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by delays and poor communication.
15. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is our role to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. We consider whether the offer of redress was in line with Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
16. Based on the evidence provided to us, the landlord was on notice of a pest infestation in the property since 5 January 2024 when a pest control contractor surveyed the property. The contractor reported:
    1. A strong smell of mice and rodents in the living room.
    2. Large number of droppings under the kitchen work surfaces.
    3. Smears and multiple points of ingress in the kitchen and living room due to a structural issue.
    4. That holes had previously been proofed but the issue remained.
    5. That the issue was high risk to the business and required urgent attention.
    6. That the kitchen should be removed and proofed for pests.
17. With this information the landlord should have prioritised the pest proofing works. There is no evidence based on the repair records that it raised works until the resident complained. This was not in line with its pest policy, which says it will take reasonably prompt action and demonstrated a lack of urgency.
18. The landlord sent a previous stage 1 complaint response in April 2024 about pest proofing. As a resolution it raised a work order to carry out proofing works. It did not refer to the previous survey in January 2024 and the work order does not specify that it would remove the kitchen units to carry out the pest proofing works. Its records show that it attended the resident’s property on 19 April 2024 to carry out pest proofing works but she refused the works because she did not believe them to be sufficient.
19. The records are not clear on whether the landlord followed up this issue with the resident after the refusal of works. Based on the severity of the reported issues from the resident and the previous survey, it should have acted promptly to address the issue.
20. On 4 October 2024, the landlord asked a pest control contractor to complete an inspection, a report, and told them proofing works may be needed. At that point, based on the previous survey, it was aware of the condition of the property and it should have been aware of the need to carry out urgent proofing works. The records indicate the contractor attended on 5 November 2024 but we have received no evidence of the findings. On 19 November 2024, the resident reported that she was unhappy that it had not completed repairs to her property.
21. On 2 December 2024, the resident asked for wellbeing support from the landlord. She reported that her mental health was deteriorating because of mice and rats in the property and other disrepair issues. She reported that she suffered from severe depression and anxiety. On the same date, pest control contractors reported to the landlord that pest control treatment was ongoing, however repairs were needed to reduce the possibility of pests. Based on the evidence provided to us, this was the second notification to the landlord that it needed to carry out pest proofing works.
22. On 18 March 2025, the resident reported seeing mice and droppings in her kitchen. A pest control contractor for the landlord attended 3 times in April 2025. It found mouse droppings behind the kitchen units, on the kitchen counter, and on the fridge. It repaired 2 gaps in the skirting board, placed baits, and on the second visit found 1 dead mouse. On its final visit, the contractor found no mice and collected the baits. However, she reported that she was still seeing mice and cleaning the droppings daily. Based on this evidence, the landlord failed to address the root cause of the issue, before closing the work order. This was unreasonable and caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
23. On 5 May 2025, when the resident complained, she reported a rodent infestation in her flat. This complaint was not acknowledged or responded to until the resident chased the landlord on 3 June 2025. This was unreasonable and caused her further delay and distress.
24. On 9 June 2025, a heating engineer attending to a boiler repair reported the resident had a serious mice infestation with mouse droppings falling out of the boiler case. This evidence indicates the extent of the issue for the resident and the circumstances in which she was living.
25. The landlord booked 3 further appointments for the pest control contractor to attend between 12 June 2025 and 10 July 2025. In those 3 appointments the contractor identified a point of entry between the boiler and the kitchen wall. The resident continued to report daily sightings in the kitchen and front room and continued to clean up droppings. The contractor reported that the kitchen units needed to be removed and cement proofed to prevent the pest ingress.
26. This was the third notification to the landlord that the kitchen units required removal to carry out proofing works. There is no evidence of a follow-on work order to complete these works. This was a significant failing that caused the resident further delay and distress.
27. Domestic hygiene is a potential health hazard to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Health effects include infection spread by rats and mice, and stress because of difficulties in keeping the home clean, particularly where the occupant has little control over the situation. A cause of this hazard is access for rodents. Preventative measure includes reducing means of access for pests and sealing any points in the walls. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property when potential hazards are identified.
28. On 25 July 2025, a heating engineer for the landlord reported that it could not complete a boiler repair because the house was infested with rat and mice droppings. It noted that there were droppings everywhere in the kitchen and it was hazardous to health. When the landlord was made aware of this potential hazard, there is no evidence that it assessed the property in line with its obligations under HHSRS guidance. This was a significant failure by the landlord, especially considering the vulnerability of the resident.
29. The landlord’s complaint investigation identified a failure to progress a work order for pest control after this report. This was a significant failing by the landlord, especially considering the boiler repair could not take place and the landlord was on notice that there was no heating or hot water in the property.
30. The evidence strongly indicates that the landlord failed to consider the root cause of the pest infestation. Despite the pest control contractors recommendations to carry out proofing works behind the kitchen units, it continued to order pest treatment works only. As a stage 1 complaint resolution, it raised another work order for pest treatment so that the boiler repair could be completed. However, it did not raise a work order to carry out the proofing works. This was unreasonable and contributed to further delays in addressing the issue for the resident.
31. On 26 September 2025, the heating contractor reported that the boiler was filled with rat and mice droppings and needed urgent pest control. On 3 October 2025, after the landlord carried out further pest treatment, the resident asked if it would include proofing works in the works schedule when the landlord was surveying the property for general disrepair.
32. On 30 October 2025, the landlord emailed the resident and noted that pest control had attended on several occasions but extensive proofing works were required. It said these works would be included in a survey on 31 October 2025. However, the survey did not include the pest proofing or make any reference to the pest infestation. As such, no follow-on work orders were raised. This caused further delay in carrying out the works.
33. The proofing works remained outstanding when the resident complained again on 10 December 2025. This was 23 months since 5 January 2024, when it became aware that pest proofing works were required. In that period it received a number of reports of pest infestation from various sources including the resident and its contractors. Its failure to recognise the urgency of the repair was particularly highlighted when it did not address the issue despite knowing works to provide heat and hot water could not be completed because of the infestation.
34. In that time the resident reported significant distress and inconvenience. She reported that she had a phobia of mice and her mental health was affected, she sought support from a community representative and her local MP. She provided the landlord with images of mice on her cooker and said that there were mice throughout her property, she reported cleaning droppings on a daily basis, and not being able to prepare food.
35. The impact to the resident was particularly evident in an email to the landlord in which she stated: “We cannot prepare food safely or relax in our home because of the constant presence of rodents. Every day feels like a battle to keep our living space clean and safe, which is exhausting and takes a toll on me and my son. We are not asking for special treatment — only for a safe, healthy place to live where I can manage my health conditions without the constant threat of harm from my own home environment.”
36. We find that there was severe maladministration with the landlords response to reports of a pest infestation. This is because it repeatedly failed to follow up on the recommendations of its contractors to carry out pest proofing works. It failed to consider its obligations in line with HHSRS to assess potential hazards. It failed to follow its own pest control policy and did not recognise the urgency of the repair and impact it had on the resident.
37. The landlord’s failure also had a detrimental effect on its ability to complete emergency heating and hot water repairs. The proofing works remained outstanding when the resident brought her complaint to us, and she reported ongoing issues. It failed to appropriately acknowledge the detriment to the resident in its complaint responses and as such, it failed to put things right for the resident by completing the required works and offering appropriate compensation.
38. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £1,500 compensation. This is in line with our compensation guidance where there has been a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.

What we have not looked at and why

39. When the resident escalated her complaint, she also complained about a leak from the roof into her kitchen and associated mould. This was a new issue from the original complaint and the evidence shows that after the stage 2 complaint response, the roof deteriorated significantly. After the stage 2 complaint response, on 31 October 2025, the landlord surveyed the property and noted penetrating damp through the masonry which compromised the boiler installation. It noted that the condition of the wall was a serious defect which required urgent repair.
40. While the roof leak has been referred to in this investigation, the landlord did not have an opportunity to address it specifically as part of the complaint. As such, it would not be reasonable for us to investigate the landlord’s response to reports of a roof leak. It is noted that the resident raised a further complaint on 10 December 2025 which included the landlords handling of reports of leaks from the roof. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response for this further complaint, she has the option to bring her further complaint to us for investigation.

Boiler repair

41. The landlord is responsible for ensuring the working provision of heating and hot water at the resident’s home. Where there is no hot water provision, this is an emergency. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy gives a 4-hour timeframe for attending to and 24 hours for completing emergency repairs.
42. On 2 July 2025, the resident reported that she had no hot water. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this repair request. This was not in line with its repair policy.
43. On 22 July 2025, the resident further reported that both the heating and hot water were not working. She reported that the boiler was damaged. The landlord attended on 25 July 2025 and found it could not complete the repair because the house was infested with rat and mouse droppings which had been reported previously. It reported that a new boiler was needed.
44. With this information, the landlord should have taken action to ensure the repair was completed as soon as possible. It should have liaised with the pest control contractor and the boiler contractor to agree a joined-up approach to ensure it could repair the boiler. There is no evidence the landlord considered any remedial action it could take while the resident had no heating or hot water.
45. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident was without a working boiler since 25 July 2025, but the only resolution it offered was to complete the pest infestation repair, before attending to the boiler. The response failed to demonstrate consideration for the conditions that the resident was living in with no heating or hot water. With this information it should have taken remedial action to lessen the impact for the resident.
46. On 26 September 2025, the landlord inspected the boiler and noted that it required replacement. However, it first knew this 12 weeks earlier on 22 July 2025. In that time the resident had chased the repair 8 times through the landlord’s repairs team and its complaints team. It raised an order to provide temporary heaters. Loss of heating and hot water combined with the pest infestation caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident for this period.
47. On 2 October 2025, the landlord surveyed the property and noted “HHSRS – No risk”. Excess cold, personal hygiene, and sanitation are all hazards under HHSRS. The landlord failed to demonstrate consideration of these hazards when it surveyed the property. While it is acknowledged that temporary heaters were in place at the time of this survey, the survey made no reference to the lack of hot water. This demonstrated a lack of understanding of its obligations to assess hazards in line with HHSRS.
48. The landlord’s lack of understanding of the condition of the resident’s property was highlighted in an email to the resident’s MP on 9 October 2025. It stated that she was using electric heaters and the immersion to provide heating and hot water. However, the resident replied that there was no immersion heater in the property and said that she had been boiling pots and pans for hot water. This was a record keeping failure by the landlord.
49. The landlord took some actions to offset the detriment to the resident by providing temporary heating and fuel vouchers which was fair in the circumstances. It also offered a move to temporary accommodation on 16 October 2025, until it completed the repairs. The evidence indicates that there were no local void properties and the resident felt that a move to a hotel would impact negatively on her mental health. While it is unfortunate that the resident felt unable to accept the landlord’s temporary move offer, the offer itself was fair.
50. An internal email on 14 October 2025 shows that the landlord could not replace the boiler because the external wall was too damp as a result of the roof leak. It subsequently installed an electric shower on 15 December 2025 and replaced the boiler on 17 December 2025. Based on this evidence, the resident was without hot water for 24 weeks. In this time the resident chased a repair for hot water 12 times. This was an unreasonable timeframe to complete an emergency repair and significantly beyond the landlord’s timescales.

Windows

51. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it aims to complete major repairs such as window replacement within 60 calendar days. It is sometimes the case that a landlord cannot keep to defined timeframes, as the circumstances surrounding each repair can differ, and further works may be identified after initial investigation. In such cases, basic good practice is for a landlord to liaise regularly with the resident to explain the reason for any delays and take meaningful steps to resolve any outstanding repairs as quickly as possible.
52. On 5 November 2024, the landlord responded to an emergency repair to make safe a bedroom window in the property. It boarded the window up and raised a follow-on order. It followed up on 22 January 2025 and measured the window. The evidence shows that it awaited materials and on 6 May 2025 it noted that materials were to be delivered that week. While the evidence indicates that there were delays beyond the landlord’s control, there is no evidence that it communicated this with the resident.
53. On 11 June 2025, the landlord acknowledged its lack of communication and advised it would chase its repairs team about the window repair. The landlord’s records show that this repair was completed on 9 July 2025. This was 186 days beyond the landlord’s timescales. While evidence indicates delays in sourcing materials and a change in its contractors, the landlord’s communication to the resident about the delay was lacking. This caused frustration to the resident.
54. When the resident raised her complaint, she reported that the windows throughout the property had disintegrated. The landlord surveyed the property and found that 4 windows required repair or renewal. When the resident brought her complaint to us, these repairs remained outstanding. It is acknowledged that the landlord was in the process of arranging the repairs to the roof and other disrepair issues. An order has been made for the landlord to carry out these repairs should they remain outstanding.

Conclusion

55. There was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests. This is because it delayed significantly when responding to a boiler repair. Based on the evidence, she was without hot water for 24 weeks and without heating for 12 weeks. This was an unreasonable timeframe and beyond the landlord’s repair timescales of completing an emergency repair within 24 hours. The resident went to significant time and trouble to chase the repairs.
56. The landlord failed to consider its obligations to assess hazards in line with HHSRS guidance. This failure caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident who reported living in a cold and damp property. She reported that she had to boil water in pots and pans for her and her son to wash.

57. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a stage 1 complaint response should be provided within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It also states that a stage 2 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a stage 2 complaint response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
58. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s initial complaint 74 working days beyond its timescales. The evidence shows that after the complaint the resident chased a response 3 times before the landlord acknowledged it. This was a significant delay and caused time, trouble and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the complaint was particularly frustrating to the resident given the extent of the substantive issues of the complaint.
59. The landlord further delayed in acknowledging the stage 2 complaint response by 13 working days. The evidence shows that the resident chased this acknowledgment also. This delay caused further frustration to the resident.
60. The landlord failed to use its complaint handling process to identify urgent repairs at an early stage. It could have used its complaint process to expedite repairs. However, its delay in identifying, logging, and acknowledging the complaint contributed to a delay in completing the repairs. Furthermore, it delayed the resident’s access to an investigation by the Ombudsman.
61. The landlord’s compensation offer of £520.84 was the same in both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response. However, the landlord’s breakdown of the compensation was different at both stages. This indicates inconsistency in its approach to assessing compensation. It is of note that part of the stage 1 offer was based on the number of days the resident was without hot water, and loss of enjoyment. However, while the landlord had not repaired the issue by the stage 2 response, it failed to increase the offer.
62. Given the extent of the loss of enjoyment, distress, inconvenience, time, trouble, and frustration caused to the resident by significant delays in responding to the substantive issues, its compensation offer did not reflect the detriment caused.
63. The Code sets out that outstanding actions agreed to resolve the complaint must be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident. After the stage 2 complaint response, the property fell into significant disrepair and the landlord was in the process of organising repairs when it provided evidence to us. However, the evidence shows that it did not follow up on an agreed action to carry out pest proofing works. The resident advised that this is outstanding.
64. There was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it delayed significantly in acknowledging and providing complaint responses at both stages. It failed to effectively use its complaints process to identify and respond to urgent repairs. Its assessment of compensation was not consistent at both stages of the complaint and its final offer did not reflect the impact on the resident. It also failed to follow up on agreed actions to resolve the complaint. These failures caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident.

Learning

65. The landlord may wish to consider training staff on its responsibilities to assess hazards. Our guidance can be found here Hazards learning resource.

Communication

66. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:

1. Let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
2. Maintain good relationship management with its contractors and monitor work in progress.

67. In this case, the records do not show if the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of repairs and demonstrated little oversight of its contractors when work orders had been raised. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord’s repairs and maintenance team followed our spotlight report recommendations.

Knowledge and information management 

68. Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) spotlight report highlights the importance of good record keeping. The evidence assessed in this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report if it has not already done so.