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

Peabody Trust (202229200)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229200

Peabody Trust

24 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. The repairs to the living room radiator.
    2. The repairs to the gate.
    3. The resident’s report of the garage subsiding.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since October 1998. The landlord is a housing association and has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. On 14 April 2022 the resident reported her garage walls were coming away and there was damage to its roof. She made 3 additional reports about the issues in May 2022.
  3. On 20 May 2022 the resident informed the landlord that the board holding the living room radiator was coming away from the wall. The landlord noted it completed the repairs on 25 July 2022.
  4. The resident reported to the landlord on 9 June 2022 that her gate was broken. It completed the repair on 16 June 2022. She made a new repair request about the gate on 22 June 2022 and the landlord fixed it on 6 July 2022. On 9 December 2022 the resident informed the landlord the gate was damaged.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 6 January 2023. The complaint was about the outstanding repairs to the board holding the living room radiator, repairs to the garage and a broken gate. The landlord treated her complaint as a service request and on 10 January 2023, it asked its repairs team to address the repairs. In February 2023 the resident informed the landlord that although the contractor said it had completed the repairs to the radiator, this was incorrect. She also said that the gate and the garage repairs were outstanding.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 1 August 2023, and said:
    1. The resident reported the board coming away from the wall behind the radiator on 23 May 2023. Its contractor attended on 25 July 2023 and said that a plumber needed to remove the radiator before they could fix the board. The landlord confirmed its contractor would be in touch to complete the repair.
    2. In December 2022, the resident reported the main gate coming off its hinges. It explained this was a specialist job, which it referred to a metal specialist. It confirmed that the specialist contractor would contact the resident to go ahead with the repair. It recognised that the resident reported the problem several times and apologised for the delay in resolving the matter.
    3. The resident made many reports of the garage subsiding but the landlord had not responded to her. The landlord said its surveyor would contact the resident to make a repair appointment.
    4. It apologised to the resident and acknowledged it should have completed the repairs sooner. It offered to pay £300 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on her.
  7. On 30 August 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said that although the landlord inspected the property, it did not resolve the problems.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident complaint on 2 October 2023 and said:
    1. It informed the resident it had allocated a new contractor to repair the board coming away from the wall behind the radiator. It explained it took this step because although it had asked the previous contractor to contact the resident, they had not.
    2. After reviewing the repair needed to the gate, it concluded it could resolve the problem more efficiently by instructing a new contractor to complete the repair.
    3. It said that since its stage 1 response, its surveyor inspected the garage and would provide a full report to the resident.
    4. It shared the lessons learned from the resident’s complaint and explained that it had lacked oversight of the contractor. It also shared some of the steps it took to improve its services such as setting up a new contract management structure and re-tendering all of its repairs contracts. It also shared that it put measured in place to improve its complaint handling.
    5. It acknowledged its failings and reviewed its stage 1 compensation offer, which it concluded was too low. It offered £700 compensation to the resident, which was equivalent to:
      1. £50 for the inconvenience caused to the resident by having to raise a complaint with the Housing Ombudsman.
      2. £100 for the impact of the failings caused by its poor IT systems.
      3. £100 for the impact of its failings caused by its poor record keeping and processes.
      4. £150 for the inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays in resolving the repairs.
      5. £300 to reflect the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident and to acknowledge the accumulative impact of its failings in responding to the resident’s reports of repairs.

Post complaint

  1. On 23 October 2023 the landlord removed the living room radiator from the wall to repair the board holding it. The resident said she had no heating in the living room because of this. Between November 2023 and March 2023, the landlord attended several times to reinstate the radiator but was unable to do this because it had not repaired the wall. On 12 March 2024 the landlord completed the repairs to the board holding the radiator. It then rehung the living room radiator on 28 May 2024 and reinstated the heating in the resident’s living room.
  2. On 15 November 2023 the landlord noted it would remove the asbestos, resecure the garage walls and renew its roof. Between November 2023 and April 2024, the landlord communicated with the resident and coordinated several contractors to complete the repairs.
  3. The resident confirmed the landlord fixed the gate in January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy describes a routine repair as restoring something damaged, faulty, or worn to a good condition in response to a report. It says that it will complete such repairs within 28 days of knowing about the problem. The policy says that when a resident reports it did not complete a repair, it will return and complete it within 5 days. It also says that it will agree repairs appointments that fit with the resident’s commitments and lifestyle.

The repairs to the living room radiator.

  1. In January 2023, the resident explained to the landlord that in May 2022, she had reported the board holding her living room radiator was coming away from the wall. She said she made several reports and although the landlord attended the property, it did not resolve the problem and the repairs remained outstanding.
  2. In January 2023, the landlord acknowledged her report and investigated the matter with its contractor. Whilst this was reasonable, it took approximately 45 days for the landlord to conclude the repairs were outstanding. We recognise it was important for the landlord to investigate what went wrong to prevent further failings. However, this should not have prevented it to take prompt action to resolve the matter within its published timeframe. In this case, the landlord did not show that while investigating the matter, it attended the property to resolve the problem once it became aware of it. This was unreasonable from the landlord and not in keeping with its responsive repairs policy to return within 5 days of a resident reporting it had failed to complete an agreed repair.
  3. In July 2023, the resident escalated her service request to the formal stage of the landlord’s complaint process. Even though the landlord established in February 2023 what needed to be done, the repairs remained unresolved. In its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged its failings in completing the repairs and assured the resident it had instructed its contractor to do the works. The evidence shows it became aware in January 2023, that it had failed to complete the repairs reported in May 2022. Whilst acknowledging its failings was reasonable, the delay of 7 months to address the problem once it knew about it, was unreasonable.
  4. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that its contractor had failed to complete the repairs as agreed in August 2023. Whilst we understand landlords often appoint external contractors to complete repairs, landlords are ultimately responsible for the repairs. In this case, the landlord did not maintain oversight of the repairs or ensure completion within a reasonable timeframe. This was unreasonable from the landlord, its failings in resolving the problem by that stage had left the resident with unresolved repairs for over 17 months.
  5. An important aspect of complaint resolution is to rebuild trust by acknowledging the mistakes made and promptly put things right. In this case, between February 2023 and October 2023, the landlord acknowledged its failings and assured the resident of its commitments to resolve the problem. However, the evidence shows that even though it promised it would resolve the problem, it continued to fail to do so. Its failings to do what it promised in its complaint responses impacted on the resident’s confidence in its ability to resolve the matter. It also caused significant inconvenience to the resident who kept chasing the repairs and had to make complaints about it
  6. We recognise that following its stage 2 response, the landlord kept in regular contact with the resident. We also understand that the landlord made every effort to schedule the repairs appointments to fit the resident’s commitments. Whilst this was reasonable and in keeping with its responsive repairs policy, the evidence shows that there were more delays in completing the repairs. It completed the repairs to the radiator on 28 May 2024. This was 2 years after the resident reported the issue in May 2022, and 8 months after the landlord’s stage 2 response to her complaint. Those were unreasonable delays in completing such repairs.
  7. The evidence shows that between October 2023 and May 2024, the landlord did not adequately co-ordinate or oversee the works. For example, on 30 November 2023, the landlord attended the property to rehang the radiator on the wall before it had repaired the board to hang it on. Furthermore, the evidence shows that in February 2024 and March 2024, it made further appointments to rehang the radiator. The resident reiterated to the landlord that it had not yet fixed the board and it could not reinstate the radiator until it had done this. This was unreasonable from the landlord, it should have adequately co-ordinate the repairs to avoid further delays. Its failings caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
  8. Additionally, while in December 2023, it raised a job to repair the board, it completed the repair 3 months later. While we understand the resident’s availability contributed to some of the delays, there were also several missed appointments by its contractors. The evidence shows that it took another 2 months to rehang the radiator on the wall and reinstate the resident’s heating in the living room. Those were unreasonable delays to complete the repairs.
  9. Furthermore, the landlord removed the living room radiator in October 2023. It is unclear whether the radiator was working prior to this. Nevertheless, between October 2023 and May 2024, the resident had no heating in her living room where the family spent most of their time. The landlord did not show that it offered some temporary heating to the resident so that she could adequately heat her living room. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer this, especially as this was the winter months.
  10. Overall, there were significant delays in resolving the matter. We recognised in its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged its failings. It also offered to pay compensation to the resident for its handling of the repairs. However, we cannot determine that the landlord’s actions and offers amounted to reasonable redress because of the delays in completing the final repairs after it issued its stage 2 response. Therefore, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the radiator.
  11. We understand the other delays happened after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. In its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord agreed to complete the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. However, as mentioned above, there were further delays in completing the repairs. Additionally, the resident had no heating in her living room for approximately 7 months. Therefore, it is reasonable to review the landlord’s compensation offer to reflect this.
  12. In accordance with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £650 in compensation. This is to reflect the impact of its failings and the delays in resolving the repairs to the radiator. The compensation also reflects the accumulation of failings over time, which added to the inconvenience caused to the resident. It is equivalent to:
    1. £350 to reflect the impact of the delays in completing the repairs.
    2. £300 to reflect that the resident had no heating in her living room for approximately 7 months.

The repairs to the gate.

  1. On 9 June 2022 the resident reported her main gate was broken. The evidence shows the landlord repaired it 7 days later, which was reasonable and in keeping with its responsive repairs policy.
  2. We understand that on 22 June 2022, the resident reported that the gate broke again. We recognise this must have been frustrating for the resident. However, we saw no evidence this was a recall repair or as a result of a failure by the landlord to carry out adequate repairs. The evidence shows that the landlord repaired the gate 14 days later, which was reasonable and in keeping with its published timeframe to complete such repairs.
  3. In December 2022 the resident reported further issues with the gate. The landlord acknowledged in its responses to the resident’s complaint that it had not repaired the gate within a reasonable timeframe. In its stage 2 response in October 2023, it informed the resident it instructed its contractor to carry out the repairs. At that point, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to promptly complete the repairs. However, the evidence shows it was another 3 months before it repaired the gate. This was unreasonable from the landlord. Its failings caused time and trouble to the resident who had to chase the repairs.
  4. The Ombudsman understands that the resident reported to the landlord that her gate broke again in July 2024. This was approximately 7 months after it repaired it and 9 months after it issued its final response to her complaint. Whilst we understand the resident’s frustration, this was a new repair which occurred after she exhausted the landlord’s complaint process.
  5. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. Therefore, this repair is not considered as part of our investigation. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process can be addressed directly with the landlord in the first instance through its complaints process.
  6. After considering the evidence of the case, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the gate. We recognised that in June 2022, the landlord repaired the gate in keeping with its responsive repairs policy. However, the evidence show that it took the landlord approximately a year to repair the gate following the resident’s report in December 2022.
  7. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged its failings. It also offered to pay compensation to the resident for its handling of the repairs. However, we cannot determine that the landlord’s actions and offers amounted to reasonable redress because of the delays in completing the final repairs after it issued its stage 2 response. Additionally, the landlord said that its offer of compensation reflected the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident across several repairs, including the repairs to the gate.
  8. We understand the other delays happened after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. In its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord agreed to complete the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. However, as mentioned above, there were further delays in completing the repairs. Therefore, it is reasonable to review the landlord’s compensation offer to reflect this.
  9. In accordance with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £150 in compensation. This is to reflect the impact of its failings and the delays in resolving the repairs to the gate.

The resident’s report of the garage subsiding.

  1. In April 2022 the resident reported her garage walls were coming away and damage to its roof. She made 3 more reports about the issue in May 2022. She informed the landlord in January 2023, that it had failed to address the problem. In its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint in July 2023, the landlord said its surveyor would contact her to discuss the repairs. However, the landlord did not show that it contacted the resident about it. This was unreasonable from the landlord. Its failings caused inconvenience to the resident who had to raise the issue as a complaint 3 months later.
  2. In its stage 2 response to her complaint the landlord acknowledged its failings to address the repairs to the garage. It explained that it had inspected the problem and would provide a full report to the resident. An important aspect of dispute resolution is for landlords to keep the promises they make during the complaint process. The landlord did not show that it provided a report of its inspection to the resident following its stage 2 response. Additionally, the evidence shows that 6 weeks later the resident informed the landlord that it had not made any repair appointments. This was unreasonable from the landlord and a missed opportunity to rebuild trust with the resident.
  3. We understand that the repairs to the garage involved several trades, including specialist contractors. We also recognise the repairs to the garage were extensive and the landlord could not have completed those within its published timeframe of 28 days. In such cases, it is essential for landlords to keep the resident updated. In this case, the evidence shows that after November 2023, the landlord provided regular updates to the resident and kept her informed of its actions. This was reasonable from the landlord. This would have reassured the resident that the landlord was actively working on repairing the garage.
  4. The resident said that the landlord completed the repairs to the garage in April 2024, approximately 6 months after she exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. We understand this must have felt like a long time to the resident. However, we also recognise this was not a routine repair and some of the delays were out of the landlord’s control. For example, it took time for the landlord to find a suitable roofer and get a quote to complete the repairs to the roof. Additionally, the garage had asbestos, which needed a specialist contractor. We also understand that it took a few weeks to find storage for the items in the resident’s garage. The evidence shows that between November 2023 and April 2024, the landlord took reasonable and timely steps to repair the garage.
  5. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged its failings. It also offered to pay compensation to the resident for its handling of the repairs. However, we cannot determine that the landlord’s offer amounted to reasonable redress because it did not say how much of its compensation offer related to its failings in handling the repair to the garage.
  6. Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the garage. We recognise that following its stage 2 response the landlord took reasonable actions to resolve the matter and communicated effectively with the resident. However, between April 2022 and October 2023, the landlord did not act on the resident’s reports, which caused her time and trouble in chasing the repairs. Additionally, the landlord did not show that it provided a full report of its inspection to the resident as agreed in its stage 2 response to her complaint.
  7. In accordance with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £200 in compensation. This is to reflect the impact of its failings and the delays in resolving the repairs to the garage.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to the living room radiator.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to the gate.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s report of the garage subsiding.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. Provide a written and detailed apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay £1000 in compensation directly to the resident (this is inclusive of the £650 offer made by the landlord in its stage 2 response, which it can deduct from this amount if it has already paid this to the resident). The compensation is equivalent to:
      1. £650 to reflect the impact of its failings and the delays in resolving the repairs to the radiator.
      2. £150 in compensation to reflect the impact of its failings and the delays in resolving the repairs to the gate.
      3. £200 to reflect the impact of its failings in its handling of the repairs to the garage.