Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Peabody Trust (202227442)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227442

Peabody Trust

13 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. A leak into the property.
    2. Concerns about electrical safety.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. His tenancy at the property began in January 2021. The property is a third floor 1 bedroom flat within a residential block. The flats in the block are accessed via external communal walkways.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 September 2022. He said water was leaking into the property from above and he had reported this “numerous times”. The resident said he had identified this was due to the rotten door frame and threshold of the flat above his.
  3. On 6 December 2022, the resident told the landlord that he was having works done within the property which included rewiring. The landlord wrote to him the same day. It said he had not sought its permission for the works which was a breach of his tenancy agreement. It told him to stop work immediately and provide it with details of the works and the contractor carrying them out.
  4. The resident first contacted us on 7 February 2023. On 13 February 2023, we wrote to the landlord on his behalf and asked it to raise a complaint about its handling of repairs and electrical safety.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 27 February 2023. It said that its surveyor had visited the property on 23 February 2023. They were arranging for an electrical consultant needed to inspect the electrics as they were not qualified to do so. The landlord said it had raised a repair to find and stop the leak from the property above. It said it would monitor the progress of both issues until they were resolved. It said after this it would make an offer of compensation for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience.
  6. On 25 September 2023, we wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. We asked for it to escalate his complaint to stage 2 as it had not resolved either issue to his satisfaction.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 27 October 2023. It:
    1. Apologised for its delay in resolving the leak. It said this was due to difficulties arranging access to the flat above.
    2. Said that its surveyor had requested an electrical inspection, however this had not been followed up on.
    3. Acknowledged that it had failed to monitor the issues as it had said it would in its stage 1 complaint response.
    4. Offered the resident compensation of £450 for the delay in the electrical inspection, £600 for the delay in resolving the leak and £150 for failing to monitor the issues following its stage 1 complaint response.
    5. Said that it had raised new orders for its contractors to address the leak and complete the electrical inspection.

Events since landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

  1. The resident accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation on 2 November 2023.
  2. The landlord’s repair records indicate that it raised a works order for an electrical inspection to its contractor on 7 November 2023. The works order is listed as having been cancelled on 8 November 2023. The landlord has told us it is unable to find evidence that an electrical inspection was completed.
  3. On 12 June 2024, the landlord emailed the resident. It apologised that it had still not repaired the leak due to difficulties gaining access to the flat above. The landlord provided us with information for this investigation on 20 August 2024. At that time, it said it was unable to determine whether it had repaired the leak.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. On 2 November 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to accept its offer of £1,200 compensation. Within this email he requested further compensation for the landlord’s handling of repairs to his windows and the lack of radiator in his bathroom. The landlord responded that, as these matters had not been part of his complaint, it could not consider compensation for these as part of the complaint resolution.
  2. Whilst we have seen evidence of the resident raising these matters with the landlord repeatedly, they were not included in this complaint, or the landlord’s responses. As a result, they do not feature in this report.

Leak into the property

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 September 2022 reporting the leak. The resident said that he had identified the leak “months ago” and reported this “numerous times”. Whilst we do not dispute this, we have not seen any evidence of these earlier reports.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time also said it would not accept complaints about matters arising over 6 months prior to the complaint being logged. With that in mind we will consider events from the email of 29 September 2022 onwards.
  3. There is no evidence within the landlord’s records that it responded to this email or raised a repair for the leak. The resident reported the leak to it again in an email of 9 December 2022. Again, there is no evidence in the landlord’s records that it responded to this or took any action. In its stage 1 response, the landlord failed to acknowledge that it had not acted on the resident’s earlier reports. It commented only that it had raised a repair for this.
  4. This repair was raised on the same day as its stage 1 response was issued, despite it receiving the complaint 2 weeks prior to this. This was an unreasonable delay. Had the landlord raised the repair immediately after receiving the complaint it may have been able to attend prior to issuing its stage 1 response and provide a more complete update. The landlord later cancelled this repair. The reasons for this are unclear.
  5. The landlord then raised the repair to a ‘plumbing and heating’ contractor on 3 March 2023, which attended on 14 March 2023. This was despite the resident having told it in his previous emails that he believed the leak was coming from the threshold of the property above – and therefore not a plumbing issue. The contractor confirmed that this was the case. As it was unable to resolve the issue, which needed to be passed to another contractor, this was a wasted visit.
  6. The landlord failed to act upon its contractor’s report, despite its stage 1 commitment to monitor the repairs to completion. On 18 September 2023, the resident emailed it again to ask if it had completed repairs to the flat above. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it raised a new repair for the leak on this date. It said that this repair “was cancelled with a note that said please cancel as new door step required.” The landlord’s contractor had already identified that the issue was with the threshold of the flat above on 14 March 2023. The landlord again failed to show appropriate knowledge and information management in its raising of repairs leading to another wasted visit.
  7. It was not until 2 October 2023, after we asked it to escalate the resident’s complaint, that the landlord raised a repair specifying the renewal of the threshold. However, its contractor was unable to contact the occupant of the flat above to arrange an appointment. It closed the repair on 11 October 2023 due to this.
  8. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said “I have seen evidence that since September 2023, Peabody have been trying to gain access to carry out the repair. I acknowledge that the delays have been unreasonable, nevertheless, the reasons for the delay are circumstances beyond Peabody’s control.” This failed to acknowledge the delays prior to September 2023, which were due to the landlord’s internal failings.
  9. The landlord raised a new repair for the threshold on 27 October 2023, the same day as its stage 2 response. Its contractor closed this repair on 17 April 2024 stating it had been unable to carry out the work. This appears to have been due to issues in gaining access to the flat above.
  10. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that if its contractor was “unable to make an appointment [with the flat above] due to the lack of contact, the contractor will contact the Neighbourhood manager to resolve any access issues.” There is no evidence that this happened, or that the landlord monitored the repair. This showed a lack of learning from its failure to monitor the repair after its stage 1 complaint response, which it had identified in its stage 2 response.
  11. The landlord raised a third repair for the threshold on 17 April 2024. Its contractor closed this again after being unable to gain access to the flat above. On 12 June 2024, the landlord spoke with the occupant of the flat above who advised it they would be available to grant access on 19 June 2024. The landlord has provided no evidence that it attempted to arrange the repair for this date.
  12. The occupant of the flat above also informed the landlord that there was a key to the property in an external key safe. They said they were happy for the landlord to gain access using this and carry out the work. Whilst we acknowledge that contractors are often unwilling to access properties without a resident present, there is no evidence that the landlord discussed this possibility with its contractor. Nor has it shown it considered other options such as seeking an injunction for access through the courts.
  13. On 3 July 2024, the landlord raised a works order to replace the entire front door and frame of the flat above the resident’s. This was cancelled on 18 July 2024 as it was unable to contact the occupant.
  14. As of August 2024, the landlord was unable to say whether it had repaired the door/frame/threshold and resolved the leak. Its repair records for the resident’s property do not show any repairs to the resident’s hallway ceiling or light – which were damaged by the leak.
  15. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £600 compensation for its “lack of coordination of the repair and lack of follow up.” This amount is in keeping with our remedies guidance for maladministration and represented reasonable redress for the failings up to that point.
  16. However, the landlord failed to appropriately monitor the repair following its stage 2 response. This meant the cause of the leak had still not been resolved almost a year later – and may still not have been. Whilst this was largely due to access issues with the property above, the landlord failed to appropriately escalate these and enforce the terms of its tenancy agreement, which require residents to grant access for repairs. Due to this, we make a finding of maladministration and order a further £600 compensation.

Concerns about electrical safety

  1. The resident has provided evidence that he raised concerns about the electrics in the property in February 2021, shortly after moving in. He said that he arranged for the property to be rewired due to the landlord’s failure to address these. However, this falls outside of the 6 month period the landlord is obliged to consider under its complaints policy. This investigation will therefore focus on events from 6 December 2022 – when the resident told the landlord he was having the property rewired.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 December 2022 telling him to immediately stop work and provide it with details of the work and the contractor carrying it out. This was in keeping with the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement which require him to obtain the landlord’s permission before making alterations to the property. This is particularly appropriate for electrical works, which can prevent a serious health and safety risk if not completed to a good standard.
  3. The landlord’s records say that it attended the property on 8 December 2022 and attempted to inspect the electrics. However, it says that the resident refused access for this. We note that the resident disputes this.
  4. The resident then emailed the landlord the following day asking to arrange an electrical inspection. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to him or followed up on this.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord about an inspection again on 14 February 2023. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to visit the property on 22 February 2023. Internal emails show that the landlord’s surveyor said the inspection should be done by an electrical supervisor. They said, “there is nothing I can determine from this inspection of any value that has not already been identified.”
  6. Despite this, the landlord said in its stage 1 response that a surveyor had attended on 23 February 2023 and referred the matter to an electrical consultant. It is unclear why the landlord still sent its surveyor when they had identified there was no value in them attending.
  7. Internal emails show the landlord’s surveyor asked for an electrical engineer to inspect the property on 3 March 2023. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord identified that “the building surveyor did send a request for an appointment to be arranged, regrettably it was not followed up by the contracts team.” As with the leak repairs, the landlord had committed to monitoring the electrical check to completion in its stage 1 complaint response. As with the leak repairs, it failed to do so.
  8. The resident emailed the landlord on 18 September 2023. He told it that it had still not inspected the electrics in the property. After we asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint, it emailed him on 27 September 2023. It said that it was “waiting on information regarding the electrical test from our surveyor following their visit to your home”. Despite this visit having occurred 7 months ago and concluded, as per its stage 1 response, that an electrical engineer was needed to inspect.
  9. On 26 October 2023, the landlord raised an order to its electrical contractor to carry out an electrical check of the property. Its repair logs show that this order was cancelled on 8 November 2023. The landlord has not explained the reason for this. When providing the information for this investigation on 24 August 2024, the landlord told us that it was unable to find evidence that an electrical inspection had been completed.
  10. We have also not seen any evidence that the resident provided the landlord with the information it requested about the works in its letter of 6 December 2022. Based on this, the landlord could not be certain that the wiring in the property was safe and failed to take appropriate steps to assure that it was. This represented a potential hazard not just to the resident but to neighbouring properties. Due to this we make a finding of maladministration.
  11. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £450 compensation for its handling of the electrical concerns. This was based on a figure of £50 per month since its surveyor’s visit in February. We make an order below that the landlord continues this payment up until the date it completes the electrical inspection also ordered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak into the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of electrical safety concerns.

Orders

  1. Within 5 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident a further £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of leak repairs.
    2. Pay the resident further compensation of £50 per month for the period from November 2023 until such time as it completes an electrical inspection of the property.
    3. Apologise to the resident for the maladministration identified by this report
    4. Inspect the front door, threshold and frame of the flat above the resident’s to determine if they are still in need of renewal. If so, the landlord should:
      1. Raise a new repair for this, to be attended within the 28 calendar days its repair policy requires.
      2. Consider how it will enforce the requirement for access within its tenancy agreement if an appointment cannot be made/kept with the occupant. Including, but not limited to, potentially utilising the key safe with the occupant’s consent.
    5. Inspect the resident’s property and compile a schedule of works needed to make good any damage caused by the leak.
    6. Have an electrical inspection of the resident’s property completed by a suitably qualified individual.
  2. The landlord should provide us with evidence of its compliance with these orders.