Peabody Trust (202528890)

Background

1. Following a leak at the property, the resident was without hot water for over a month. The resident then waited several months for flooring repairs which remained unresolved by the end of the complaints process. The resident lives with her son. There are vulnerabilities in the property which the landlord is aware of.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. A leak in the property and the associated repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the property and the associated repairs.
4. We made a finding of service failure in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord delayed completing repairs, showed inconsistent communication and did not appropriately address safety concerns. By the end of the complaints process, the resident did not have clarity on when repairs would be completed. The landlord’s complaint response acknowledged some issues and offered compensation, however it did not fully address the extent of its failings or recognise the overall impact on the resident. The landlord’s compensation offer was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings.
6. The landlord exceeded the target timescale for its stage 2 response and did not address all elements of the complaint in its responses.

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. The resident said that there was a pest infestation at the property, poor communication from contractors after the final complaint response and issues with obtaining a copy of her tenancy agreement. As these aspects were not included in the resident’s complaint to the landlord, we have not included them in this report. This is because we cannot investigate matters which the landlord has not had chance to put right first. This investigation focused on events from March 2025, when the issues relevant to this complaint were first reported, until the landlord’s final complaint response on 18 September 2025.
8. The landlord’s repairs policy commits to completing routine repairs within 28 days and repairs requiring multiple visits within 60 days. The resident told the landlord on 28 July and 9 September 2025 that she first reported floor damage in March 2025. The landlord did not provide evidence of these reports but did not dispute them. The resident again reported floor damage from a leak on 26 June 2025. The landlord’s complaint response in September 2025 confirmed that flooring repairs were due to be completed but it did not give a date. It was not reasonable that 6 months after initially reporting the issue and at the conclusion of the complaints process, the resident was left without a clear timescale for the flooring repairs.
9. The resident reported having no hot water on 24 May 2025. The landlord resolved this on 2 July 2025, 39 days later. This was an excessive delay for an essential and basic amenity. The resident said her and her son had to rely on using family members’ homes for washing. The resident was also described in the landlord’s internal notes as vulnerable and as living with a disability. The landlord did not show that it assessed the impact on the resident and her son or consider temporary solutions. The landlord accepted that it should have given more consideration to the resident’s vulnerabilities. However, it did not show an understanding of the specific impact on the resident or consider what it could have done differently, such as exploring reasonable adjustments.
10. After the resident reported issues on 24 May 2025, there was no contact from the landlord to the resident before the contractor attended on 11 June 2025. There was then no further contact until 26 June 2025 when the resident made the stage 1 complaint. The landlord also did not update the resident about the flooring repairs. The landlord’s communication failings were appropriately acknowledged in its complaint responses.
11. The resident raised a safety concern on 26 June 2025 which she said was causing her significant distress, inconvenience and impacting her ability to safely use the property. The landlord’s repairs policy commits to keeping a resident’s home safe and it would have been reasonable to assess the reported risk promptly. While it is not clear when the landlord attended the property, it put a safety check on hold until after 5 August 2025, meaning it did not satisfy itself that the home was safe for over a month. The landlord failed to acknowledge that this delay left the resident living with an unresolved safety concern for an extended period, causing ongoing distress and inconvenience.
12. The resident reported damage to her belongings from the leak and said the landlord was responsible. The landlord told her to claim on her contents insurance or submit a liability claim. The landlord’s compensation policy requires it to investigate such claims before involving insurers and to take appropriate steps to remedy. The landlord did not investigate the claim and signposted her directly to insurance routes, which was not in line with its policy. It did not acknowledge these failings in its complaint responses.
13. The resident said in the stage 1 complaint that she had no running water and that the landlord should have supplied bottled water. She later said she incurred additional costs including hotel stays and higher electricity usage from boiling the kettle. The landlord attended on 26 June 2025 and confirmed that running water was available, so it was reasonable that it did not provide bottled water. The landlord recognised that the resident incurred some additional costs. It said it could not cover hotel costs, as the resident did not meet the criteria for a move to temporary accommodation, in line with its alternative accommodation policy. The landlord offered some compensation to recognise the additional costs incurred which was a reasonable response.
14. The landlord acknowledged the inconvenience caused by its delays and poor communication, referencing the resident’s vulnerability and the impact on daily life in terms of boiling kettles and using a hotel. It offered £400 for distress and inconvenience, £200 for time and trouble and £100 for additional costs incurred. However, it did not acknowledge the impact of failing to respond promptly to a safety concern, provide a repair completion date, give any meaningful consideration to the resident’s vulnerabilities or investigate her claim before involving its insurers.
15. We have made a finding of maladministration and ordered the landlord to pay an additional £200 in compensation. The total amount of £900 is appropriate as the failures caused prolonged inconvenience and uncertainty from March 2025 until after the final complaint response. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance where there were failings which had a significant impact on the resident. It also recognises the increased impact that 39 days without hot water had on the resident because of her vulnerabilities.
16. The resident and the landlord told us that the flooring repairs are currently underway. As such we have not made orders in relation to this.

17. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires the landlord to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt. It should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord met the stage 1 timescale. It exceeded the stage 2 timescale by 11 working days. It did not acknowledge this delay in its response.
18. The landlord also did not address all aspects of the complaint. For example, the resident asked for a clear explanation of the delays and a timeframe for the completion of work. These were reasonable requests which landlord did not address. The resident was left without clear answers or certainty about the next steps, which could reasonably have caused uncertainty and reduced confidence in the complaints process.
19. We have made a finding of service failure. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation to reflect the frustration and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failings.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. We did not identify any issues with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

21. The landlord acknowledged its communication failings and identified a learning opportunity from the complaint.