Peabody Trust (202530104)

Background

1. The resident lives with her husband and child who is 1 year old. She reported to the landlord that the windows were mouldy, draughty, streamed with water and were not fit for purpose. The resident and her husband have eczema and the resident has asthma.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of window repairs including damp and mould.
3. We will also consider the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of window repairs including damp and mould.
5. We found the landlord provided reasonable redress for its handling of the associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

6. The window repairs raised by the landlord on 14 August 2025 were considerably delayed. The sash window replacement remains outstanding, 7 months later. The landlord has missed opportunities to put things right and this has caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident.
7. The landlord apologised for its failings and in our view offered fair and proportionate compensation.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

8. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it aims to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days and major repairs, such as window replacements, within 60 calendar days.
9. The landlord raised a repair for the windows on 19 November 2024. It closed the job on 29 November 2024 after it was unable to contact the resident. On 21 January 2025 the resident reported a damaged window frame, as well as mould, peeling paint, condensation, and draughts affecting all windows.
10. There is no clear evidence that the landlord took timely action between January and March 2025. A repair order was raised, cancelled, and raised again. A contractor was due to attend on 28 March 2025 however it is unclear what, if any, action was taken. The resident said told the landlord a mould wash took place during March. The landlord should have kept accurate records of its actions or the works completed.
11. The landlord has not shown it took appropriate steps to identify and address the cause of the damp and mould or that it maintained proper oversight of the repairs. This is because:
    1. It told the resident it thought the damp and mould was caused by the guttering and needed investigation. There are no records showing how it reached this decision.
    2. On 3 June 2025 the landlord told the resident it checked the guttering works completed and the guttering was clear of blockages. The landlord did not provide the inspection record when requested. It has not demonstrated that it assured itself of the quality of work completed.
    3. The landlord’s policy states recalls should be completed within 5 calendar days. The resident reported water pouring onto the windowsill in rain. The landlord raised a recall on 1 August 2025, this was then cancelled due to not being allocated to the original contractor. There is no evidence of any further action. As it had identified the guttering as a potential cause of damp and mould, it should have ensured the issue was fully resolved.
12. The landlord did not act in line with its damp and mould policy, which requires a proactive approach and consideration of resident impact. Damp is a recognised hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System and warrants prompt assessment, particularly where vulnerabilities are present. Although some repair orders noted that a baby lived in the property, the records do not show how this was considered. There is no evidence of a vulnerability assessment until 30 October 2025. Missed opportunities included:
    1. On 13 March 2025 the resident reported rotten windows and black mould and said her baby could not use the bedroom.
    2. On 12 June 2025 she reported rotten, mould‑covered window panes and said this posed a health hazard to her and her newborn baby.
13. A surveyor inspected the windows on 15 July 2025 and identified 5 single‑glazed windows with defective timbers. It noted rot, mould, and that a baby lived in the property. The case was referred to the planned investment team for replacement who did not approve the request, saying further investigation and planning considerations were needed. Although interim repairs were arranged, there is no evidence of an action plan to progress the investigation. The landlord told the resident it would complete holding repairs until renewal but could not confirm when replacement would occur. This left the resident with uncertainty when the windows would be fully addressed.
14. On 14 August 2025 the landlord raised a job to overhaul all windows, including renewing the resident’s child’s bedroom window sash. A mould wash was completed on 31 October 2025. In January 2026 the resident told the landlord that draughtproofing was carried out on 3 December 2025. The landlord did not clearly record these repairs. Based on the resident’s account and the absence of reliable landlord records, we view the landlord response was delayed and outside its repair policy timescales.
15. The landlord’s stage 2 response accepted service failings, apologised, and offered compensation. From its compensation breakdown provided to the resident, we view that £600 related to its handling of the window repairs and the damp and mould. This fell within the “extensive disruption” range in its compensation and remedies policy and in our view was fair and reasonable at the time of the stage 2 response.
16. We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of window repairs including damp and mould. The repairs raised on 14 August 2025 were considerably delayed and the sash replacement remains outstanding 7 months later. It has missed opportunities to put things right. In light of ongoing window concerns including damp and mould, the landlord’s failure to proactively manage and complete work it identified as necessary, the winter conditions, and the impact on the resident as she has told us and the landlord that her child cannot sleep in that bedroom, a further £300 is ordered. This is for the period from 2 October 2025 to the date of this decision to recognise the additional distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
17. We have made an order for the landlord to renew the bedroom window sash as it agreed to do so, within 4 weeks of this decision.
18. The resident has continued to report to the landlord about damp and mould around the windows and concerns about the frames following the repairs. An inspection completed on 21 January 2026 suggested the condition of the bathroom windows might have been causing damp and mould. The landlord also identified the need for 2 further mould washes in January 2026. In January 2026 the resident told the landlord her baby had developed a cough and that her and her partner have medical conditions.
19. Taking into account the findings in this investigation, the further reports since the repairs were completed and reported impact on the resident since the landlord’s investment team’s decision, we have made an order for the landlord to review its position on replacement windows.

20. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation within 5 working days, issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the escalation. The landlord’s complaint policy meets these requirements.
21. The landlord took 9 working days to issue its stage 1 acknowledgement. The stage 1 response was issued 15 working days later, exceeding the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy.
22. In its stage 1 response, the landlord did not respond the resident’s request for a rent reduction due to a room being unusable. The landlord should have set out its position because the resident made a clear request for redress, and it was required to respond to each part of her complaint in line with the Code.
23. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 request after 6 working days, which was slightly outside the timescales in its policy. The stage 2 response was issued in 29 working days, which also exceeded the policy timescale.
24. The landlord did not show it thoroughly investigated the resident’s stage 2 complaint. The landlord should have addressed the resident’s dissatisfaction that her windows were not being replaced.
25. The landlord acknowledged service failings and apologised. It offered £200 compensation which in our view was fair and reasonable and recognised the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord needs to maintain accurate and complete repair and communication records, ensuring inspections, survey findings and completed actions are clearly logged. Clear and accurate records help staff and us understand the repair history, support effective decision‑making, and provide assurance that issues have been handled appropriately.

Communication

27. The resident told the landlord about vulnerabilities in the household. The landlord did not acknowledge this in its communication with her. This meant the resident did not receive reassurance that her circumstances were understood or considered.