Peabody Trust (202527031)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202527031

Peabody Trust

30 September 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 10 May 2023. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident suffers from sickle cell disease, a chronic lung disorder, depression, and anxiety.
  2. On 10 October 2023, the landlord moved the resident into temporary accommodation after it received reports of bed bugs and progressive damp and mould in the property.
  3. On 30 October 2023, the resident raised a complaint that the landlord had not considered her vulnerabilities when moving her into temporary accommodation. On 5 November 2023, she further clarified that the series of temporary accommodations provided were unsuitable for her medical conditions. She attached a medical self-assessment for the landlord. She had extra expenses for transport to collect her medications. She said that her first decant had no cooking facilities, the second decant was on the third floor which was difficult for access due to her limited mobility, the third decant had a communal lift and lobby which caused her anxiety. She said that she had to use her oxygen machine more regularly because of the altitude of being on the second floor and the cooking facilities were inadequate as there was no microwave.
  4. On 6 November 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It advised that it would be in contact to assess her housing with consideration to her medical needs.
  5. On 22 November 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She wanted compensation for the period when she had no cooking facilities. She was also concerned that her utility bills increased during the decant. She wanted a timescale for the temporary decant. On 1 December 2023, the resident said that due to her medical conditions she wanted all repairs completed including the front door before she moved back into the property.
  6. On 19 December 2023, the landlord ended the decant. The resident did not move out of the decanted property until 4 January 2024 because of concerns for her health. On 13 January 2024, the resident asked the landlord to pay the decant bill of £7488 which was invoiced to her for the disputed period.
  7. On 26 January 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s vulnerabilities. It apologised for not considering the decant issues she raised in its stage 1 complaint response. It found that there was a dispute in the level of service the resident received during her decant. The landlord said it needed to consider the resident’s requested redress and would revert to her. It offered the resident £400 for complaint handling failings and poor communication.

Events after the internal complaints process

  1. On 2 October 2024, the landlord offered the resident £305.96 for subsistence and utilities costs incurred while she was decanted.
  2. On 11 October 2024, the landlord advised the resident that it would pay for the decant bill of £7488. It apologised for the delay in making this decision.
  3. On 16 October 2024, the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She remained unhappy because the landlord had not acknowledged her request for re-imbursement of travel expenses incurred when moving back into the property and subsistence expenses incurred when she was decanted to a property with no cooking facilities. She said that the landlord continued to ignore her health conditions. As a resolution to the complaint, she wanted compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant

  1. Based on the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord was not aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities until it arranged the decant. It initially arranged the decant on 10 October 2023, for 3 days in a hotel. It then moved the resident on 13 October 2023, to a self-serviced flat. The landlord moved the resident again on 5 November 2023 because the resident had said she had difficulty accessing the flat on the 3rd floor.
  2. Based on the correspondence provided to the Ombudsman, the first time the landlord was made aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities was on 5 November 2023, when the resident completed a medical assessment form. As such, we can not find any service failings with the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities when arranging the resident’s decant.
  3. Towards the end of the resident’s decant, she expressed concerns about moving back to the property before all repairs were complete because she felt that her medical conditions would be affected if repairs, in particular the front door, were not complete before she moved back.
  4. The landlord requested further evidence from the resident about her medical conditions. The resident expressed frustration at being asked to prove her medical conditions, however, this was a reasonable request by the landlord to help assist the resident with moving back to the property and for her housing needs in general.
  5. The landlord extended the resident’s on 2 occasions because the resident raised concerns that the incomplete repairs would affect her medical conditions. This was reasonable.
  6. On 12 December 2023, the resident told the landlord that she was advised by a medical advocate not to return to the property in its current condition. On 13 December 2023, the landlord asked the resident for supporting evidence from a medical professional to evidence that the property was not suitable for her to return to. This was a reasonable request by the landlord.
  7. The resident did not move out of the decanted property on 19 December 2023 as requested by the landlord. On the same date the resident attended her GP and on 22 December 2023 she received a letter from her consultant haematologist explaining that cold, damp, or draughty conditions may impact her medical condition. This evidence was provided to the landlord on 22 December 2023. The resident remained in the decanted property until 4 January 2024.
  8. Because the landlord had not authorised the decant beyond 19 December 2023, the resident received the decant bill for £7488. This caused distress to the resident. However, based on the evidence, the landlord took reasonable steps to obtain evidence of the resident’s medical conditions before the end of the authorised decant period. Ultimately, the landlord paid the decant bill which was reasonable in the circumstances.
  9. On 28 January 2024, the resident provided the landlord with a list of receipts and expenses that she incurred during the period of the decant. These expenses included taxi receipts and food bills. The landlord’s decant policy sets out that it will pay reasonable disturbance payments and food allowance.
  10. Based on the evidence, the landlord offered a subsistence payment to the resident for the first 3 days while she was in a hotel with no cooking facilities. This offer was made on 2 October 2024, 8 months after the resident’s request. This was an unreasonable delay.
  11. The resident requested further subsistence payment while she was in a property with no microwave to heat her meals prepared by her carer. When the landlord arranged the decant, there was no evidence that it was made aware that she required a microwave oven to assist with her medical conditions. However, the evidence is not clear if the landlord has provided a response to the residents request.
  12. The resident also remained unhappy that the landlord had not paid travel costs for the taxi when returning to her property after the decant. The evidence is not clear if the landlord provided a response to this request.
  13. The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant. This is because it unreasonably delayed in considering the resident’s request for subsistence payments and travel expenses. It is ordered for the landlord to apologise to the resident for this failure and to provide the resident with a response.

Complaint handling 

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response lacked any detail in response to the resident’s concerns about her decant. The landlord acknowledged this failing in its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised and offered redress of £200 for this failing. This was a reasonable offer.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was 24 working days beyond its timescales for providing a complaint response. It is acknowledged that the substantive issues of the decant were ongoing throughout this period and the landlord was in regular contact with the resident. However, it would be expected that the landlord writes to the resident to agree an extension to the complaint response if it had a good reason to do so. The landlord acknowledged this failing also in its stage 2 complaint response and offered redress of £200. This was reasonable.
  4. The Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling failings. It identified complaint handling failings and offered redress which in the Ombudsman’s opinion was reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. There was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant.
  2. The landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, in respect of complaint handling failings, which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. It is ordered for the landlord apologise to the resident for the delay in providing an offer for the resident’s decant costs.
  2. It is ordered for the landlord to consider the resident’s further request for decant expenses and provide the resident with a decision.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord undertakes an Equality Impact Assessment as set out in the Equality Act 2010 to evaluate the potential impact of its decant policy and practices on different groups.