Peabody Trust (202526075)

Decision
Case ID	202526075
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	27 April 2026

Background

The resident lives on her own and is vulnerable and elderly. She reported that she did not have hot water for 2 weeks. When the landlord repaired the hot water system, it did so incorrectly. She said this caused further problems with her shower and she had to pay for a new one. She was unhappy with the repair delays and its compensation offer. The resident’s daughter is her representative. For readability, this report refers to the resident and representative as ‘she’ and ‘the resident’ throughout.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of hot water issues
2. complaint

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of hot water issues.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of hot water issues

The landlord’s communication was poor, and it did not always follow its Repairs or Compensation Policy. It missed several opportunities to put things right sooner and its stage 2 compensation offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s escalation request in line with its Complaints Policy or the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It delayed paying compensation and did not show 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.

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: 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 25 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,583 made up as follows: £607 it offered in its stage 1 response for complaint handling and hot water issues £100 it offered in its stage 2 response for complaint handling delays £726 for the shower costs it agreed to pay in its stage 2 response £150 to recognise the time and trouble it caused by its delayed stage 2 response and failure to pay the compensation it offered This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 25 May 2026
3	Communication order The resident has asked for the landlord to explain its complaint response delays. The landlord must write to the resident setting out why it delayed its stage 2 response. This could also include, but not be limited to: what learning it has taken from this case what, if any, measures it has taken to improve its complaints handling	No later than 25 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 February 2024	The resident made a complaint. In summary, she said: on 4 December 2023 she reported she had no hot water on 15 December 2023 the landlord installed a new pump to the communal heating system on 8 January 2024 she could not turn off the shower and arranged for her own plumber to attend the plumber installed a new shower, but the landlord had fitted the wrong pump, which caused her shower to break on 23 February 2024 the landlord missed a repair appointment she relies on her daughters for assistance as she gets confused
5 March 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
22 May 2024	The landlord gave its stage 1 response. In summary, it said: it had reviewed the repair logs and set out the dates it had attended on 17 January 2024 the resident told it the incorrect pump had been fitted on 7 March 2024 it attended but found the pump had been replaced it apologised for the stress and anxiety it caused It offered the resident £607 compensation, made up of: £587 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its repairs handling £20 for its delayed complaint response
Between 22 May 2024 and 3 September 2024	The resident asked to escalate her complaint several times as she was unhappy with the landlord’s compensation offer. She also asked it to reimburse her for the cost of the new shower.
10 June 2025	The landlord gave its stage 2 response. In summary, it said: it repeated its stage 1 findings it apologised for missing an appointment it agreed to reimburse the resident for the shower as it incorrectly fitted the pump, which caused the shower problem It offered her £1258.25 compensation, made up of: £432.25 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its repairs handling (including missed appointments) £100 for complaint handling £726 for the shower
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s responses and compensation offer. To resolve her complaint, she wanted the landlord to: apologise give her the compensation it offered in its responses compensate her for the time and trouble spent chasing the landlord explain why it did not escalate her complaint and respond in a reasonable timeframe

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of hot water problems.
Finding	Service failure

On 4 December 2023 the resident reported she had no hot water. The landlord attended within 4 hours, meeting its Repairs Policy’s 4-hour timeframe. It found that the communal heating system needed a new pump, which it did not install until 15 December 2023.
During this time, the resident had no hot water and relied on a kettle for washing. This caused her and her daughter concern, given the resident was elderly. There is no evidence that the landlord kept her updated on the delays, despite its Repairs Policy commitment to do so.
On 2 January 2024 the landlord attended again to replace the pump. At this stage, neither party was aware that an incorrect pump had been installed, so it was unclear why it returned. This did not reflect its policy’s commitment to provide a ‘seamless’ repairs service.
On 8 January 2024 the resident reported that she could not turn off her shower and arranged for her own plumber to attend. They advised that the landlord had fitted the wrong pump, which caused the resident’s shower processor to stop working. They installed a new shower to resolve the problem.
The resident provided the plumber’s findings to the landlord on 12 January 2024, and details of the correct pump required. The landlord booked appointments for 17 January 2024 and 23 February 2024, which it missed due to staff sickness.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy says it will contact residents as soon as possible if an appointment changes. Despite this, the landlord failed to do so on both occasions. This caused the resident avoidable time, trouble and inconvenience.
On 26 February 2024 the resident made a complaint. She explained she had been without hot water for 2 weeks in December 2023 and gave it a timeline of events. She asked the landlord to reimburse her £726 for the shower.
The landlord installed the correct pump on 7 March 2024. This was 55 days after it was told one was needed and exceeded its 28-day Repairs Policy timeframe. However, there is no evidence this caused the resident inconvenience at this stage as the shower had been fixed.
Between 10 and 13 May 2024 the resident gave the landlord a receipt for the shower. She explained that it had broken due to the landlord’s actions.
In its stage 1 response, dated 22 May 2024, the landlord appropriately apologised for the distress and inconvenience it had caused. It provided a timeline of events, showing it had investigated the repairs history.
The landlord’s £587 compensation offer was also consistent with its Compensation Policy. This suggests payments between £451 and £650 are reasonable where there have been failures that had a short-term impact on the resident. This broadly aligns with our compensation guidance.
However, it did not respond to the resident’s request to reimburse the shower costs. This was not in line with its Compensation Policy, which requires it to establish whether its actions likely caused the damage before declining or referring the problem to its insurers. The resident likely felt her concerns had been overlooked.
Between 22 May 2024 and 3 September 2024, the resident repeatedly asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She also asked it to reimburse the shower costs. During this time, the landlord refused to do so but increased its offer by £250.
Evidence shows the landlord’s poor communication continued, adding to the resident’s frustration. For example, between 3 September 2024 and 10 June 2025 the resident contacted the landlord at least 4 times for a response. She told it she did not feel the compensation it offered reflected her experience.
On 10 June 2025 the landlord gave its final complaint response. It accepted that fitting the incorrect pump caused the resident’s shower to break and agreed to reimburse her. This shows the landlord had considered its policy’s duty to assess whether its action or inaction caused damage.
While the landlord delayed agreeing to reimburse the shower costs, it did eventually do so. However, its approach to compensation at stage 2 was unclear. On 30 May 2024, it increased its compensation offer to £857, excluding the shower costs. It later reduced this amount in its final response.
It is unclear why the landlord reduced its overall compensation at stage 2, particularly as its delays were likely to have increased the resident’s frustration. It missed the opportunity to explain why it had reduced its compensation offer. In doing so, the landlord mismanaged the resident’s expectations and caused avoidable confusion and distress.
Overall, the landlord’s final response and compensation offer did not go far enough in putting things right. Its communication was poor and it mismanaged the resident’s expectations through inconsistent compensation offers. These failings caused her avoidable distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble. In line with our compensation guidance and the landlord’s policy, we have ordered the landlord to pay its stage 1 offer.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, dated 26 February 2024, within 6 working days. This slightly exceeded the 5 working day timeframe set out in the landlord’s Complaints Policy and the Code. There is no evidence this had a significant impact on the resident at that stage.
On 19 March 2024 the landlord extended the response deadline. This was in line with the Code, which allows an extension of up to 10 working days.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 22 May 2024, 44 working days later. This exceeded the Code’s 10‑day timeframe. The landlord’s lack of communication during this period likely made the resident feel her concerns had been overlooked.
The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint despite repeated requests between 22 May 2024 and 3 September 2024. It only issued its final response on 10 June 2025, after the resident contacted this service. This caused her avoidable time and trouble.
The landlord’s final response was more than 1 year after the resident’s initial escalation request. This exceeded the Code’s 20 working day timeframe. This was an unreasonable delay and undermined her confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord’s £100 compensation offer for complaint handling was not consistent with its Compensation Policy. This suggests payments between £151 and £250 where it has failed to follow policy and has caused the resident inconvenience. Considering this, its offer did not go far enough to put things right.
After the landlord’s final response, the resident accepted its total compensation offer. However, it did not pay this within 21 working days as set out in its Compensation Policy. The resident spent more than 6 months pursuing the payment, causing her time and trouble. At the time of this report, there is no evidence the landlord had paid this.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling and communication were poor. The onus was unreasonably on the resident to ask it for updates, which caused her significant time and trouble. The landlord failed to explain its delays throughout the complaint, causing the resident uncertainty about whether it would respond.
Our compensation order reflects these failings, the landlord’s Compensation Policy and our compensation guidance. These both suggest compensation awards of up to £250 where its failings cause distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.

Learning

Prompt payment of agreed compensation can help bring complaints to a timely conclusion. Delays can add to a resident’s time, trouble and frustration, particularly where they may have already experienced service failures.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord re-attended to fit a pump, despite it having been done earlier. The landlord could take the opportunity to review whether its systems support its repairs delivery and accurately tracks when repairs are completed. This helps prevent duplicate or unnecessary appointments and supports effective oversight of repairs.

Communication

Keeping residents informed of delays, appointment changes, and next steps helps build trust and transparency. Poor communication can increase the impact of service failures and contribute to prolonged dissatisfaction.