Peabody Trust (202438089)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202438089

Peabody Trust

22 July 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 reports about:
   1. The condition of the property, including damp and mould, excess dust, and excessive cold.
   2. The conduct and opinion of surveyors.
   3. Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has been a secure tenant of the one-bedroom property since 1992. The landlord is a housing association. The resident is noted as having mental health, respiratory and skin conditions.
4. The resident reported damp and mould on 9 February 2024. Subsequent inspections found no evidence of damp. An independent inspection on 15 April 2024 found no visible signs of mould and that the resident was mistaking dust for mould. However, the surveyor found ineffective ventilation and recommended replacing extractor fans.
5. The landlord carried out ventilation repairs, but the resident complained about mould on 23 September 2024. The landlord arranged a further inspection with 2 internal surveyors on 21 October 2024 which found a minor patch of mould in the kitchen. They reported that dust levels were not exceptional nor consistent on every surface and they believed they were caused by a lack of regular cleaning. They recommended a mould treatment and that an electrician check the effectiveness of the cooker hood. They found the bedroom was cold and there was condensation due to an imbalance of temperatures. They noted the resident needed to heat the property and he was not doing so, as he believed this generated dust and made it difficult to breathe.
6. The resident reiterated his complaint between 11 November and 27 December 2024. He also complained the property was dusty, too cold and he could not use the heating. He said he had been throwing away clothes as they smelled of damp and fungus and his sofa was sticky. He provided a letter from his GP detailing his conditions and how they affected him, and asking for more suitable accommodation. He said his property had been unliveable for 30 years.
7. The resident also reported ASB and said he had been attacked outside the property and his car had been vandalised. He said delivery items were stolen in communal areas and people were ringing his doorbell in the early hours of the morning. He said he answered the door with a weapon because of this.
8. The landlord tested the ventilation and applied a mould wash. In its stage 1 response of 7 January 2025 it acknowledged a delay in doing so and upheld the complaint. It awarded £375 compensation for these issues and its complaint handling.
9. The resident was unhappy with this compensation and escalated his complaint later that day. He asked to be put up in a hotel until the landlord found him suitable alternative accommodation. He continued to report the presence of mould and the landlord arranged further mould washes on 10 and 21 January 2025.
10. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 26 March 2025. It referenced the findings of the previous surveys and assured the resident they were truthful. It explained the causes of condensation and how the resident could prevent it and manage the dust. It said it could not decant him into a hotel. The landlord said his reports of ASB were common and the neighbourhood teams worked with police to improve the environment of residents. It offered to support him to request a move on medical grounds. It awarded a further £50 compensation for complaint handling delays.
11. The resident told us he would like compensation of around £60,000 to resolve his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. The resident has complained about issues dating back 30 years. In the interests of fairness, and taking into account the availability of evidence, our investigation is focused on events that occurred up to 12 months before the formal complaint was made. We have also only considered issues which the landlord was given the opportunity to investigate at both stages of its complaint process. Finally, we note that some of the resident’s concerns were addressed in our previous case ref. 202007243, including his request for a transfer to another property. We do not consider these same issues again here.

The condition of the property

13. The landlord has a damp and mould policy that says it should investigate all reports of damp, mould and condensation and carry out any necessary repairs. It is positive the landlord inspected the property on 15 March 2024 following the resident’s initial report of damp. This was appropriate and in line with its damp and mould policy. Whilst this found no damp or condensation it did find low levels of wall insulation and a low internal wall temperature. The landlord acted appropriately when it carried out the surveyor’s recommendations and arranged the internal inspection of 15 April 2024, resulting in ventilation improvements.
14. Despite 2 surveys finding no visible signs of mould, it is positive that the landlord continued to take the resident’s reports seriously. The further survey of 21 October 2024 was appropriate and again in line with the damp and mould policy. This found the bedroom was cold and landlords do have a duty to ensure properties are free from hazards, including excess cold.
15. In assessing this potential hazard, we would usually expect the landlord to test the effectiveness of the heating system. Although the survey found the resident’s bedroom was cold, the landlord was reasonable not to assess the temperature further at that point. This is because the resident said the heating system was working effectively but he did not use it. He said this was because he believed it caused excess dust and made it hard to breathe.
16. The survey had identified that dust was not excessive and was a result of inadequate cleaning and cluttered furniture. The surveyor’s advice on how the resident could organise furniture and possessions (to reduce excess dust and damp) was appropriate. We would expect the resident to try these preventative measures first to see if the situation improved before expecting the landlord to assess the temperature further.
17. Although the landlord carried out recommended repairs, its repair policy says it should complete such non-urgent repairs within 28 calendar days. It did not contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the extractor fan until 23 December 2024 (63 days later). Further, the damp and mould wash was not completed until 10 January 2025 (80 days later). Both repairs were progressed significantly out of time and represent failures in service. It is positive that the landlord acknowledged these delays in its stage 1 response and carried out a further damp and mould wash on 21 January 2025.
18. The landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed the cause of damp was condensation and advised the resident how to prevent this. This was appropriate. Its damp and mould policy says it will work with residents to help them manage condensation. It also explained how he could manage the dust.
19. However, its response to the resident’s concerns about the temperature of the property was unsympathetic. It incorrectly said he was not using the heating as he was too hot (he said he could not breathe when it was in use). That being said, the landlord did offer additional support for this issue and later arranged a survey for 22 May 2025 to assess the resident’s needs and ensure the property was a decent, warm and safe place to live. We have not been provided with the outcome of this survey but this action was appropriate and shows that the landlord did take his concerns about the condition of the property seriously.
20. The landlord’s decision not to decant the resident to a hotel was appropriate. Its damp and mould policy says it will only do so when there is extensive remedial work required. The repairs identified at the property were not extensive. The landlord’s re-housing policy allows for priority moves for medical reasons in addition to exceptional circumstances. Again, it was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident of this policy and offered to support him with any application.
21. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings, and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress, are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
22. The landlord awarded £350 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by its repair handling failures. The resident believes this figure should be much higher and said the issues affected his health. We are unable to assess whether the landlord’s failures impacted the resident’s health. He could seek independent advice about this or consider a personal injury claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts.
23. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of the landlord’s failings. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can make awards of between £50 and £600 when there has been a service failure over a short to medium duration and there has been no permanent impact. The award of £350 was within this range and in line with our own remedies guidance when there has been failure that adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact. Therefore, we find the landlord has provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the property.

Concerns about surveyors 

24. The resident complained the surveyors were ‘useless’ and had not carried out moisture readings properly or identified the cause of damp. It is positive the landlord spoke with the resident about this on 14 January 2025 and gave him the opportunity to set out his position. Its subsequent reassurance that the surveyors’ reports were truthful, was appropriate.
25. Whilst it would have been helpful if the landlord had provided more of an explanation to justify this reassurance, we have seen no evidence that the surveyors’ findings were inaccurate. They were suitably qualified and experienced. Their reports included photographs of the moisture readings being taken and these did not support the resident’s allegation that they were carried out incorrectly. Therefore, in the absence of any tangible evidence to say otherwise, it was reasonable for the landlord to trust that the surveyors’ reports were accurate, and to rely on their professional opinions.
26. However, the resident also complained about the conduct of the surveyors, saying they lied, did not listen and lacked empathy. The landlord’s code of conduct says its staff and contractors must treat everyone with respect and kindness. It is not our role to determine whether the surveyors acted in line with this. Instead, we consider whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint about this in line with its complaint policy, which extends to dissatisfaction about staff and those acting on its behalf.
27. We would have expected the landlord to carry out an investigation following this complaint, in line with our dispute resolution principles. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have contacted the surveyors about the resident’s concerns and seek their perspective on what had happened. We have seen no evidence that this happened or that there was any meaningful investigation into this issue. This was a failure in service.
28. We therefore order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £50 compensation for the time and trouble progressing this issue without an appropriate response. This is inline with our remedies guidance when there was a minor failure by the landlord and it has not appropriately acknowledged this or put it right.

Reports of ASB

29. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will respond to reports of ASB within 2 working days. It says it will use a range of preventative measures, early intervention and signposting to mediation services to tackle it. It also says it will agree an action plan with the complainant and keep them informed. It says it will carry out risk and vulnerability assessments on those who report ASB to ensure the appropriate level of support can be provided and any safeguarding issues are identified.
30. While it is positive the landlord referred the resident to its priorities and resident safety team for support, there is no evidence it applied its ASB policy. Our previous determination of 202007243 dealt with the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB in respect of incidents of car vandalism on 31 January 2020 and 17 May 2022 and an occasion where the resident felt intimidated by his neighbours on 22 August 2021. We would not expect the landlord to consider these matters again, as it had already done so and the resident had exhausted the complaint process in respect of these incidents.
31. However, we have not seen evidence that the landlord clarified whether the resident was experiencing new issues of ASB or if his reports were historical. It should have done this to justify any decision not to apply the ASB policy. Further, we have not been provided with a record of the decision not to apply the ASB policy. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management says records should tell the full story of what happened and clearly state any decision made and the reasons for it, including any decision to take no further action. If the landlord had provided this information, we may have been able to assess if its decision not to apply the ASB policy was reasonable.
32. These failures amount to maladministration. We order the landlord to contact the resident to establish if he is experiencing current issues of ASB and, if so, take appropriate action. We also order it to pay him £150 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance when maladministration adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right.

Complaint handling

33. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. Its complaint policy says it aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and then respond in 10 working days. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint of 23 September 2024 until 7 January 2025, 73 working days later. This was significantly outside its published time scales and was a service failure. Although the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, it did not provide regular updates during this time. This led the resident to contact us a significant number of times in December 2024.
34. During this time, the resident raised new complaints, including that he did not receive a call back from a Housing Officer leading him to attempt to take his own life. The stage 1 response acknowledged inadequate response times and how they can affect a resident’s physical and mental well-being. Records show the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously and progressed appropriate safeguarding action.
35. However, it did not address all the resident’s new complaints. The landlord’s complaint policy says that relevant additional complaints can be addressed in the stage 1 response if it has not been issued. Therefore, the additional matters raised between 11 November and 27 December 2024 should have been addressed in the response of 7 January 2025. They were not and this was a failure in service. It is positive that the landlord addressed most of these issues at stage 2.
36. However, the stage 2 response failed to address the resident’s complaint that his personal belongings were damaged. It is not our role to decide if the landlord was responsible for this damage. Such decisions may be made through the landlord’s liability insurance (if it has such cover in place), the resident’s own contents insurer, or via the courts.
37. However, we can assess if the landlord’s response was in line with its compensation policy. This says it should take appropriate steps to investigate such complaints of damage and establish whether it has caused or exacerbated any damage through its actions or inactions (providing appropriate remedy if that is found to be the case). There is no evidence it followed this process or provided a formal response to this issue. Again, this was a service failure.
38. The stage 2 response was issued 57 working days after the resident escalated his complaint. Again, this was outside of the 25-working day target it aims to acknowledge and respond to stage 2 complaints. It also gave incorrect information about the resident’s tenancy start date which caused him frustration. These were further service failures which, when considered in addition to the others, amount to maladministration.
39. Although the landlord awarded £75 overall for its poor complaint handling, this does not recognise all the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the significant complaint delays and the landlord’s failure to consider all issues. We therefore find that further remedy is required to put things right, in line with our dispute resolution principles.
40. The landlord’s compensation policy allows awards of between £100 and £200 for poor complaint handling when it has failed to follow its policy or correctly investigate a complaint resulting in inconvenience and effort. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay £150 (including the £75 previously awarded) in recognition of its complaint handling failures. This is in line with our remedies guidance when the landlord has acknowledged failings and attempted to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
       1. Reports of ASB.
       2. Associated formal complaint.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports about the conduct of surveyors.
42. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the property.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

43. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any arrears) £350 compensation for distress and inconvenience as follows:
       1. £50 for its handling of his concerns about surveyors’ conduct.
       2. £150 for its handling of his ASB reports.
       3. £150 for its complaint handling (inclusive of the £75 already awarded).
    3. Contacted the resident to clarify whether he is experiencing new issues of ASB. If this is confirmed, the landlord should evidence that it has applied its ASB policy.

Recommendation

44. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £350 previously offered for its handling of his reports about the condition of the property, if it has not done so already. This recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this being paid.