Peabody Trust (202520789)

Background

1. The resident’s daughter told the landlord there was damp and mould in the property and it was affecting her mother’s and her own health. She noted her mother had asthma and fibromyalgia. She also said the landlord failed to identify the root cause of the damp and did not listen to her.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. Whilst the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, it did not assess whether there was any potential risk to the resident or put any monitoring arrangements in place to check whether the work it undertook was effective. It is unclear if the landlord has identified the cause of the damp and mould, which the resident says continues to return.
6. Whilst the landlord offered the resident an apology and compensation, it did not take any learning from the complaint.

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.

7. In considering the landlord’s response to the resident’s daughters’ reports of damp and mould, it is noted that she has referred to a possible impact upon her mother’s and her own health. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a person’s health, as this would be more appropriate for a court or insurer to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to take her concerns further.
8. The housing records confirm the resident’s daughter told the landlord there was damp and mould in her mother’s kitchen on 14 December 2023. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had an obligation to meet its repairing responsibilities as set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement. This confirms the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building and keeping the interior of the property in good repair.
9. The landlord contacted the resident on a number of occasions between 18 December 2023 and 20 December 2023 to arrange an appointment to inspect the damp and mould. This demonstrated it took her concerns seriously and wanted to put things right for her. The landlord did not receive a response and cannot be held responsible for the delay in treating the damp and mould at this point.
10. An appointment was agreed with the resident’s daughter on 16 January 2024 to complete a mould wash in the kitchen on 24 January 2024. This was consistent with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. The work was completed on this date.
11. A further mould wash was completed in the bathroom on 31 January 2024. It was noted during the appointment that the extractor fan in the bathroom was working and that the mould was due to the resident closing the window vents and not opening the window when having a bath. The landlord said it gave the resident a leaflet about damp and mould.
12. A follow-up appointment was cancelled on 15 February 2024 by the landlord. It said this was because it did not receive a response from the resident to its request for contact. This was not appropriate. This Service does not expect landlords to close jobs if they are unable to gain access to address a potential hazard. In such circumstances, landlords should proactively try to gain access.
13. The landlord arranged an appointment on 5 March 2024 to continue the mould treatment following contact from the resident’s daughter. The kitchen walls were re-plastered and the ceiling painted on 30 April 2024. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
14. The resident’s daughter told the landlord on 24 June 2024 that the damp and mould had returned in the bathroom. She said there was mould on the floor tiles and around the bath. The landlord arranged an appointment for 22 July 2024 but was unable to gain access. This contributed to the delay in treating the damp and mould and the landlord cannot be held responsible for this. A mould treatment was applied on 12 August 2024 in accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
15. There is no evidence the landlord put any monitoring arrangements in place following the completion of the mould wash. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this given the history of damp and mould in the property. The landlord’s failure to do this meant it lacked certainty as to the efficacy of its action in providing an enduring remedy.
16. The resident’s daughter told the landlord on 15 October 2024 that there was mould in the living room and bedrooms. The landlord arranged an appointment for 23 October 2024. There is no evidence the landlord triaged, reviewed the property repair history or undertook an assessment to determine if the resident was vulnerable. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation self-assessment says it will do this. Had it done so, the landlord would have identified there was an ongoing problem with damp and mould and the resident had a number of health issues, which could present a risk.
17. The resident’s daughter told the landlord on 20 October 2024 that the mould was affecting her mother’s and her own health. She said her mother had asthma and fibromyalgia. There is no evidence the landlord considered whether it needed to undertake a risk assessment. It would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to have done this given the history of damp in the property and the resident’s health conditions.
18. A mould wash was applied in the bedrooms on 23 October 2024. Again, there is no evidence the landlord put any monitoring arrangements in place following the completion of the work. The resident’s daughter told the landlord on 28 October 2024 the work was not done correctly. She also said there was a damp patch on the kitchen ceiling. She asked the landlord to inspect the property and establish the cause of the problem.
19. The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s home on 7 November 2024. This was appropriate. They noted that there were air vents in the bedroom walls and windows. They also noted there was mould in the bedrooms, but the resident had declined its offer to treat it given it kept returning. It was recommended that a surveyor inspect the property to establish the root cause of the problem.
20. The landlord inspected the property on 21 November 2024. This was appropriate. No details about the inspection findings were included in the report. This was a failure and meant the landlord was unclear about the level of damp and mould found or the impact it was having on the resident and her daughter.
21. It was however recommended that a thermal imaging survey was completed. This demonstrated the landlord was resolution focused. It arranged for the kitchen ceiling to be sealed on 22 November 2024. This was consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
22. The resident’s daughter told the landlord on 27 November 2024 that the mould was getting worse and affecting her mother’s and her own health. She also noted she had not received an update regarding the thermal imaging survey. Further requests for updates were made on a number of occasions in December 2024.
23. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the requests. This was not consistent with this Service’s spotlight review on damp and mould. This says landlords should clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
24. The landlord arranged for a further mould wash to be completed on 20 December 2024, but its contractor was unable to gain access on the appointment day. The landlord cannot be held responsible for the delay in treating the damp and mould.
25. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on the same day (incorrectly dated 12 January 2026).
26. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
27. In this case, the landlord noted that whilst its contractor responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in accordance with its responsive repair timescales, it had failed to identify the root cause of the problem and the damp returned. This demonstrated the landlord took learning from the complaint. It said it had arranged for a thermal imaging survey to be completed and an urgent mould wash to be carried out on 20 December 2024. This provided clarity.
28. The landlord confirmed it had arranged for major works to be completed, although no details on the scope of the repairs were included in the response. The landlord said it would monitor the work through to completion and keep the resident updated. It also said it would review its compensation offer once the work had been completed. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
29. The resident’s daughter told the landlord on 31 December 2024 in her complaint escalation request that the window vents were permanently left open and the property was ventilated every day. She also said someone was at home for the appointment arranged for 20 December 2024 and the landlord’s response to her request for updates were insufficient. She said the landlord needed to identify the root cause why the mould was occurring and she wanted to know why it had taken over a month to arrange the thermal imaging survey.
30. A thermal imaging survey was completed on 7 January 2025. This confirmed there was significant heat loss from the building and there was a risk of condensation on the external walls. It said this could be due to insufficient insulation. It was also noted that the humidity levels in the property were above average and the ventilation was insufficient. Mould growth was identified on the external walls and on the ceilings adjacent to these walls. A leak was also identified on the pipework in the bathroom. It was recommended a specialist ventilation and insulation contractor was appointed to carry out a survey of the property, the bathroom pipework was repaired and the silicone around the bath was replaced.
31. The resident’s daughter asked the landlord for an update about the thermal imaging survey on a number of occasions in January 2025. The landlord said it provided her with a copy of the report on 14 January 2025. This demonstrated transparency and was in accordance with this Service’s spotlight review on damp and mould. This says landlords should share the outcomes of surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps.
32. It is unclear from the housing records what action the landlord took on receipt of the thermal imaging survey. This demonstrated poor record-keeping on the part of the landlord.
33. The landlord noted on 11 February 2025 in its final complaint response that the delay in carrying out the thermal imaging survey was due to it being unable to source a contractor. This provided clarity. It confirmed the survey was completed in January 2025 and the work was underway. It also said it would keep the resident updated and noted it did not believe she needed to be temporarily rehoused given the level of damp and mould did not require any more intrusive interventions.
34. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience that had been caused and increased its offer of compensation to £500 for the inconvenience and trouble caused to the resident.
35. The landlord’s apology and offer of compensation cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because the resident continued to experience problems with damp and mould. She told the landlord on 17 March 2025 that the identified work had not been completed and its contractor failed to attend an appointment that had been arranged for that day. She told the landlord on 4 June 2025 that there was damp and mould in the living room and bedroom.
36. It is not clear from the housing records what action was taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns. Whilst it was noted in September 2025 that the ‘‘mould work was in progress’’ it is unclear what this entailed. The landlord confirmed on 26 September 2025 that all of the repairs had been completed and offered the resident an additional £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The resident reported further problems with damp and mould in November 2025.
37. The landlord’s more recent actions cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because it did not take action until after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The revised financial offer was, however, reasonable and this Service will not be making a further order of compensation.
38. When all of the circumstances are considered, a finding of maladministration has been made alongside orders to investigate and remedy any residual damp and mould and causative factors at the property.

39. The resident’s daughter made a complaint on 20 October 2024. The landlord responded on 29 October 2024 and said it had not logged a complaint given it had raised a repair. It said she could raise a complaint if she remained unhappy. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code (the Code). This says landlords must raise a complaint when a resident expresses dissatisfaction with a service request. In this case, the resident’s daughter had previously reported problems with damp and mould and said she wanted to make a complaint.
40. The resident’s daughter confirmed on the same day that she wanted to raise a complaint. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged her complaint. This was not consistent with its complaints policy and led to her chasing up the landlord on 12 November 2024 and 13 November 2024.
41. The landlord told the resident’s daughter on 27 November 2024 that it had logged her complaint. It did not formally acknowledge her complaint until 3 December 2024. This was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord said it would provide a response by 9 December 2024.
42. The landlord told the resident’s daughter on 6 December 2024 that it needed more time to investigate the complaint. It said it would provide a response by 23 December 2024.
43. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 20 December 2024 (incorrectly dated 12 January 2026). This was some 9 weeks after the resident’s daughter made her complaint. It apologised for any inconvenience that had been caused and offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay in issuing its complaint response. The landlord’s redress actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
44. The resident’s daughter escalated her complaint on 31 December 2024. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation request. This meant she was not clear when she would receive a reply. She chased the landlord up on 2 January 2025 and 7 January 2025.
45. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint escalation request until 16 January 2025. It said it would provide a response by 13 February 2025.
46. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 11 February 2025. It offered an apology for any inconvenience that had been caused and increased its offer of compensation from £50 to £100. It said this was for the delay in responding to the resident’s initial complaint and because the original offer of compensation was not sufficient.
47. Whilst the landlord’s increased offer of compensation was reasonable, it did not take learning from the complaint and the absence of a meaningful commitment to the evidence of any reoccurrence means we cannot make a finding of reasonable redress.
48. Taking into account the landlord’s actions, a finding of service failure has been made.

Learning

General learning

49. In the absence of a meaningful commitment to and fulfilment of changes in its operations, the landlord reviews its complaints handling processes to reduce the likelihood of any reoccurrence.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

50. The housing records provided by the landlord were limited in areas and made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord should ensure it keeps accurate and clear records so it is able to meet its obligations.

Communication

51. The landlord’s communication with the resident’s daughter was poor at times and it failed to respond to a number of her request for updates.