Peabody Trust (202206513)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206513

Peabody Trust

26 March 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:
   1. Reports of damp, mould, water ingress, and its handling of the associated repairs.
   2. Boundary changes in the communal garden.
   3. Reports of antisocial behaviour.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a ground floor flat. The resident has a number of health conditions and is also receiving treatment for cancer. The resident is a wheelchair user. There is a garden at the rear of the property which is designated as a communal area.
3. On 18 April 2023 the resident reported damp, mould, water ingress and damaged windows at the property. Both parties agree that a surveyor attended on 20 April 2023 and recommended:
   1. That 4 windows in the property be replaced. These were completed on 17 January 2024.
   2. The treatment of mould in the living room and bedroom, followed by repainting. This was completed on 25 April 2023.
   3. Replacement of silicone in some areas of the bathroom, completed on 25 September 2023.
   4. External repairs to the property. It is unclear if these were completed.
4. In May 2023 the resident and her upstairs neighbour entered into a mediation agreement following allegations of antisocial behaviour (ASB). As part of the agreement, the landlord agreed to the resident’s request to install a fence and divide the garden.
5. On 28 February 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her that a surveyor would attend on 12 March 2024 to inspect the garden. It explained that it had been made aware that the garden had not been divided equally and was attending to investigate.
6. On 12 April 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident. It explained that the surveyor had taken measurements of the garden and determined that it was not divided equally. It said the fence would need to be moved. It apologised to the resident that it was not installed correctly on the first occasion. The resident expressed several concerns about the proposal, but said that she was currently undergoing cancer treatment and did not want to deal with the matter at the that time.
7. On 16 April 2024 the resident complained. The resident:
   1. Said she did not want the landlord to make any changes to the fence without her consent.
   2. Was unhappy that the landlord had not responded to a complaint she reported making in March 2024.
   3. Wanted the landlord to investigate the resident’s historic reports of ASB which led to the fence being installed.
   4. Complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports of damp and mould. She did this via the Ombudsman.
8. On 17 April 2024 the landlord informed the resident it had received legal advice about the garden. It stated that the garden was a communal garden which belonged to neither the resident nor her neighbour. It said that it had made an error in dividing the garden unequally, which it now needed to put right.
9. On 2 May 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said that:
   1. It was sorry the fence had been installed incorrectly and offered £200 compensation. It agreed with the resident’s request to put any action or discussions regarding the fence on hold until she had completed her medical treatment and could participate.
   2. All the repairs relating to the resident’s reports of damp and mould had been completed. It apologised that there had been some delays in completing these works. It offered £200 for the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience.
   3. It had not received any reports of antisocial behaviour in the last 8 months. It advised the resident of how to report any new incidents.
10. The resident asked the Ombudsman to escalate the complaint with the landlord on her behalf, which we did on 12 August 2024. The details of the complaint remained the same as at stage 1 of the complaints process.
11. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 September 2024. It stated that:
    1. It had not received any reports of damp and mould since the repairs were completed on 17 January 2024. It asked the resident to let it know if damp or mould issues persisted.
    2. It would increase its earlier offer £200 compensation up to £400.
    3. It was sorry for the delays in completing the window replacements.
    4. It had been unable to confirm that the external works had been completed. It would seek further information and take further action if required.
    5. It would not take any further action with regard to the garden fence until the resident was ready.
    6. It was sorry for communication issues with the resident, such as not updating the resident about delays in replacing the windows.
    7. It had not received any recent reports of antisocial behaviour.
12. The resident told the us that she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response and asked us to investigate on 17 September 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

13. The resident asked us to investigate the historic allegations of antisocial behaviour against her neighbour prior to May 2023. The evidence shows that as a result of those reports, the landlord agreed to the resident’s desired outcome to erect a dividing fence. The resident did not make any further reports of antisocial behaviour for an extended period thereafter. The resident’s desired outcome was to address reports of antisocial behaviour which are “ongoing”. As such, it would not be reasonable to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour prior to May 2023.

Reports of damp, mould, water ingress, and its handling of the associated repairs

14. The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that most non-urgent repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days. Where those repairs are complex or require additional time, for example due to manufacturing times or the need for a specialist contractor, it should complete repairs within 60 calendar days.
15. In October 2021, the Ombudsman published its “Spotlight report on Damp and Mould”. It notes that damp and mould can be prejudicial to health. It notes that it is good practice to inspect and take appropriate actions, such as performing mould washes, promptly. It also stressed the importance that investigations into the root causes are thorough.
16. The Regulator of Social Housing’s Safety and Quality Standard states that landlords “should communicate promptly with tenants about repairs and keep them regularly updated on progress and how they are resolving any issues.”
17. The landlord said that it responded to the resident’s report of damp and mould by completing a survey within 2 days and a mould wash within a further 5 days. The evidence corroborates the landlord’s account that it did attend on 3 occasions, however no dates are available. The resident did not dispute the landlord’s account. It is reasonable to conclude that these works took place as described. The landlord took prompt and appropriate action in response to the first report.
18. The landlord identified the works required on 20 April 2023, all of which should have been completed by 19 June 2023, under its Repairs Policy. The landlord was correct to apologise for the delays in replacing the windows in its stage 2 complaint response because it was completed on 17 January 2024, which was a delay of 212 days. This was a failing.
19. The delay was exacerbated by the landlord’s communication with the resident, which it acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response. It should have contacted the resident to keep her updated, but it did not.
20. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord stated that it had been unable to confirm if the external works at the property (described as brickwork and repointing) had been completed. The resident reported on 2 May 2024 that this was still outstanding. This was a failing.
21. The landlord offered £400 compensation in its stage 2 complaint response, to reflect general distress and inconvenience caused by the above failings. The landlord’s Compensation Policy sets out that where there has been disruption caused by a service failure, compensation should be considered. The policy outlines that where there has been a high impact on the resident, compensation of up to £400 should be considered. Based on the information at the time of its stage 2 response, it paid the maximum amount available under its policies. The landlord therefore provided reasonable redress to the resident.
22. Descriptions and pictures provided by the resident to this Service suggest that damp and mould issues remain at the property. However, the evidence supports the landlord’s statement that it had not received any further reports by the resident of ongoing damp and mould issues. It was correct to invite the resident to make further reports if necessary, but there is no evidence that she did this. The reports warrant further investigation. Recommendations have been made below that the landlord survey the property.

Reports of antisocial behaviour

23. The landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) Policy states that it “will encourage and expect residents and customers to take responsibility for solving personal disputes between themselves where appropriate.” It adds that this includes referring the parties concerned to mediation. A mediation agreement was in place between the resident and her upstairs neighbour during the period assessed.
24. The resident reported on 15 September 2023 that the upstairs neighbour had broken the mediation agreement with respect to arrangements they had agreed to share responsibility for maintaining the communal garden. The landlord replied that it “doesn’t usually get involved with the enforcement of individual agreements between neighbours”. This response was in line with its policy. The evidence shows that there had been written guidance issued by the landlord previously in May 2022 confirming that gardening arrangements would be organised between the neighbours.
25. The resident said as an outcome to her complaint, she wanted the landlord to resolve the ongoing antisocial behaviour. The landlord explained to the resident that it had not received any reports from the resident between 15 September 2023 and 10 September 2024. The evidence supports this.
26. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour. The landlord showed good practice by directing the resident toward making new reports if necessary.

Boundary changes in the communal garden

27. The landlord reported that the garden to the rear of the property is a communal garden. There is no documentation setting out who should have access to the garden or how it should be used. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not include the provision of a garden.
28. The evidence shows that use of the garden was shared between the resident and her upstairs neighbour, until the landlord made the decision to divide the garden in May 2023. The evidence shows that the resident had requested this division.
29. The landlord surveyed the garden and found that it had been divided unequally, which it needed to put right. It is understandable that this would be concerning for the resident. The resident did not want this change to go ahead. The evidence shows that the landlord sought legal advice to inform its decision, which was appropriate.
30. The resident said that she wanted to participate in any discussions before the fence was altered. She asked the landlord to wait until a time when her health may better allow her to engage in these discussions, because of her ongoing cancer treatment. The landlord agreed to this request and committed to delaying doing this until the resident was ready. It also reassured the resident that it would be “mindful of her accessibility needs” and make sure these were not affected.
31. The Regulator of Social Housing’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard states that the landlord should “demonstrate that they understand the different needs of tenants, including in relation to the equality strands and tenants with additional support needs”. The landlord demonstrated adherence to this standard.
32. In conclusion, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of boundary changes in the communal garden. This is because:
    1. It was for the landlord to decide if and how the garden was divided
    2. It apologised that it had done this incorrectly the first time and showed good practice by paying compensation
    3. It did more than it was obliged to by agreeing to delay the works

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of reports of damp, mould, water ingress, and its handling of the associated repairs.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of boundary changes in the communal garden
35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.

Recommendations

36. To contact the resident to arrange an inspection or survey of recent damp and mould that she reported to this Service.
37. To pay the resident the compensation already offered in its complaint responses, if it has not done so already, as a finding of reasonable redress has been made on the basis that this has been paid.