Peabody Trust (202533118)

Background

1. The resident lives in a fourth-floor flat. In March 2025, he reported that the window frames and fittings in the property were damaged and he could not close the windows. He complained about the landlord’s handling of his repair report.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of window repairs.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of window repairs.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord has not completed the window repairs in line with its repairs policy. The repairs remain outstanding, which has caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident.
6. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failings, apologised, and offered compensation in line with our compensation guidance.

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.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident says he has experienced ill health due to the landlord’s handling of his complaint. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim. The courts handle this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide the cause and duration of any illness. We did not investigate this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

8. The resident told the landlord that he has had issues with his windows for over 5 years. Our investigation focuses on the period from March 2025 to the end of the complaint’s procedure in October 2025. This timeframe reflects the events that directly led to the complaint and means the landlord had a fair opportunity to respond to the specific concerns raised during that time.
9. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy defines window repairs as programmed work due to the complexity. It should complete the work within 60 calendar days.
10. The resident reported that his window frames and fittings were broken, damaged, and he could not close them on 14 March 2025. However, by the end of the complaints process on 7 October 2025, the issue was still unresolved.
11. The landlord has not disputed that it did not manage the repairs to the windows in line with its responsive repairs policy. In its stage 1 response on 18 July 2025, it apologised for its poor communication and delays. It offered £150 for these failings and said it would arrange a surveyor’s inspection. While it could have done more to confirm the next steps, it took responsibility for the delays and poor communication and offered compensation in line with its policy.
12. In its stage 2 response on 7 October 2025, the landlord again acknowledged that it did not manage the repairs effectively. It appropriately acknowledged 3 cancelled appointments and offered £10 for each of these. This was in line with its compensation policy. It also said it had the parts to repair the windows, and it would arrange an appointment to complete these repairs. It offered a further £270 compensation for the additional delays and the distress and inconvenience caused.
13. Overall, the landlord has not disputed that there were significant delays in progressing the repairs up to October 2025. This extended for over 7 months, and it acknowledged poor management of this process and a lack of communication with the resident. It offered a total of £450 compensation, which was in line with its compensation policy for service failures that have caused disruption to a resident.
14. In its stage 2 response, the landlord made a commitment to complete the repairs to the windows. Its responsive repairs policy says it must complete window repairs within 60 calendar days. This created a reasonable expectation that it would complete all the work within 60 calendar days of the stage 2 response. However, to date, over 6 months after the landlord issued its stage 2 response, there is no evidence that it has completed the window repairs.
15. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered compensation and made a clear commitment to put things right by completing the window repairs. On that basis, we may have found reasonable redress for the failings identified up to that point, but for the landlord’s failure to complete the repairs for a further 6 months after the stage 2 response. The landlord did not progress the work within the timescales set out in its responsive repairs policy. It did not show that it had learned from the earlier complaint. These continued delays are particularly significant given the resident’s safety concerns, as he lives on the fourth floor.
16. We therefore order a total of £850 compensation for the landlord’s failures, which caused the resident distress, inconvenience, and ongoing delays. The landlord previously awarded £450 to recognise a delay of around 7 months up to the stage 2 response, which equates to approximately £64 per month. However, the repairs remained outstanding for a further 6 months after the landlord said it would complete the work. We have therefore ordered an additional £400 compensation to reflect this further period. This additional amount is broadly consistent with the landlord’s original approach. The total ordered compensation of £850 is in line with our compensation guidance and reflects the full length of time the resident has been affected.

17. The landlord had a 2-stage complaint process. It aimed to issue a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. Its definition of a complaint and its response timescales were compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
18. The resident raised a complaint on 7 July 2025. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 July 2025, in line with the timeframes set out in the Code.
19. The resident escalated his complaint on 19 July 2025. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 October 2025, which was 36 working days late. It was appropriate for it to acknowledge this delay in its response and to offer £150 compensation.
20. Overall, the landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failings and offered £150 compensation. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance for cases where its service failures had an adverse impact on the resident.

Learning

General learning

21. This investigation highlighted the importance of progressing repairs in line with its repairs policy. Not doing so led to unnecessary delays and inconvenience for the resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord did not effectively monitor or track the window repair to ensure it was completed in line with its repairs policy.

Communication

23. This investigation found gaps in the landlord’s communication, particularly in keeping the resident updated. It did not consistently provide timeframes or explain delays. This created uncertainty and increased the resident’s need to chase for information.