Peabody Trust (202544131)

Background

1. The resident reported uneven paving in a communal area to the landlord on several occasions. He was unhappy with its response and time taken to complete the repair.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of uneven paving.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of uneven paving.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
4. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of uneven paving

5. The landlord did not complete the repair in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. Its communication with the resident was poor. It did not fully resolve the matter through its internal complaint procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

6. The landlord did not handle the resident’s complaint in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaint procedure. It offered some compensation. However, this was not proportionate to the delays experienced by the resident.

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.

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 he reported uneven paving in June 2025 and made repeated requests for updates. The landlord said it raised 2 work orders on 19 July 2025. It has not provided records of the initial report, the work orders, or copies of his communications. This indicates poor record keeping and has limited our ability to assess its response.
8. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy confirms it was responsible for maintaining communal areas where it was the freeholder. Although neither party has provided a copy of the lease, there is no evidence to dispute that this obligation applied. Its policy also states it will carry about regular inspections to check for repairs in communal areas. It has not provided evidence of inspections or whether it identified the paving issue as a potential hazard.
9. The landlord said contractors attended on 22 July 2025 but could not complete the repair as the operatives did not have the correct skillset. It has not provided a report or evidence from this visit. We have also seen no evidence that it promptly arranged a follow-on appointment with suitably skilled operatives or that it kept the resident informed. This reflects a failure to manage the repair effectively and avoidable delay.
10. Following the resident’s complaint in August 2025, the landlord raised a further work order, demonstrating that the resident had to pursue the matter to progress the works. It has not evidenced any consideration of risk, which was inappropriate considering the nature of the outstanding repair.
11. At stage 2, the landlord said it completed the repair on 23 November 2025. It has not provided any records of the repair attendance, or evidence to demonstrate how it assured the quality of the completed work.
12. In September 2025, the landlord initially advised the resident that it did not compensate for communal repairs. This was not consistent with its compensation policy, which says it will consider compensation and other remedies if it fails to carry out a service within its published guidelines. It also says it will consider payments for distress and inconvenience when a situation has impacted a resident.
13. The landlord acknowledged delays and poor communication within its final complaint response and awarded £275 compensation, excluding complaint handling. In line with our compensation guidance, this was broadly proportionate for failures causing distress and inconvenience without permanent impact. However, the repair remained unresolved. The same day it issued its final complaint response, the resident reported the works were unsuccessful and the paving remained uneven.
14. While a repair being unsuccessful in isolation does not necessarily amount to a service failure, the absence of supporting records, post‑inspection, or quality checks undermines the landlord’s position that it appropriately addressed the matter. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it set out clear next steps to the resident following the failed repair. This lack of communication, combined with delays in progressing the repair within the expected 60-day timeframe for complex works, represents a failure in service delivery.
15. The landlord has provided limited evidence of its actions post-complaint, although it referred to further investigations involving external specialists. It confirmed that it had scheduled additional remedial works to begin on 18 May 2026, almost 11 months after the resident said he initially reported the issue. This indicates it did not provide an effective and lasting repair within a reasonable timeframe. However, we appreciate the repair was more complex than it initially considered. We contacted it to ask for more information about the status of the repair, however it has not provided this.
16. Our compensation guidance explains that we can consider compensation up until the landlord corrects the failing or until the determination date, whichever is earlier. We do not order compensation beyond the determination date. The available evidence does not confirm whether the remedial works started on 18 May 2026, nor whether the repair was completed.
17. In view of this uncertainty and the period under consideration, we have determined that the landlord should pay the resident an additional £225 in compensation. This is in addition to the £275 previously offered at stage 2, excluding compensation for complaint handling which we have considered separately below. This brings the total compensation to £500.
18. This award falls within our range of financial redress set out in our compensation guidance. This is applicable where failings have adversely affected a resident but have not resulted in permanent impact.

19. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days. This is extendable by up to 10 and 20 working days respectively in agreement with the resident.
20. The landlord’s complaint procedure aligns with the Code in respect of complaint definition and response timescales. However, it was not compliant with the Code regarding its stage 2 extension timescale of 10 working days. We have identified a learning point on this issue.
21. The resident complained on 30 August 2025. The landlord acknowledged this 35 working days later, on 17 October 2025 after further contact from him. This was significantly outside Code requirements. It issued its stage 1 response 20 working days after acknowledgement, with no evidence of an agreed extension. It also failed to acknowledge his escalation request. It provided its stage 2 response within its policy timescale.
22. The landlord offered a total of £50 compensation for its complaint handling failings. In line with our compensation guidance, this does not reflect the extent of delay and service failure, which went beyond minor shortcomings. A higher award is appropriate for delays of this duration. Accordingly, we have made a finding of service failure, with an additional £25 compensation ordered.
23. We have considered the landlord’s acknowledgement of failings and apology, as well as the learning set out within its complaint response. We have taken these into account, as without them, a finding of maladministration for complaint handling may have applied.

Learning

General learning

24. The landlord ought to ensure its complaints policy fully aligns with the Code in terms of extension timescales.
25. The resident provided evidence that he provided his bank details to the landlord and said it had not paid compensation. The landlord said it did not receive these. The landlord ought to consider how it processes offers of compensation post complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. Good record keeping ensures that repairs and works are managed effectively without the need for repeat reports or unreasonable delays. It also supports our investigation if the landlord provides detailed information relating to repairs and communication. The landlord may wish to review our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.
27. When repairs remain outstanding after the stage 2 complaint response, it is important that landlords provide updated information to us about the status of the repair.

Communication

28. Effective communication is vital. Poor communication leaves residents uninformed, leading to frustration and repeated contacts. Clear, timely updates help manage expectations, reduce repeat contact, and highlight areas where processes or oversight need improvement. The landlord may wish to review our Spotlight Report on Repairing Trust.