Peabody Trust (202300329)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300329

Peabody Trust

17 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Leaks into the property and subsequent damp and mould.
2. Damages to personal property.
3. Issues with faulty air bricks.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. This is a one-bedroom ground floor flat in a block. The landlord is a housing association. There are respiratory health vulnerabilities recorded in the resident’s household.
The landlord’s repair records show various reports of leaks from the roof and guttering from other leaseholders in the block, from September 2022 to October 2023.
On 27 December 2023 the resident reported a leak coming into her flat, via the windows and wall. She said it was coming from the roof and guttering. The landlord raised a job for this on the same day. It then cancelled the job on 19 January 2024 as it said it had not received any further information regarding the location of the leak.
On 13 February 2024, another resident of the block reported a guttering blockage at the back of the building.
On 27 February 2024 the resident called the landlord to chase the leak repair she had reported on 27 December 2023. She told the landlord that her husband suffered from respiratory health issues and asked to make a complaint. She said she had mould in the bedroom and that the wardrobe and clothing had been damaged by water ingress and damp and mould.
The landlord’s repair records show that the landlord did not successfully raise a job for the guttering leak and roof issues until 27 February 2024.
The landlord’s communication with us states that a roofing appointment was carried out on 5 March 2024, but there is no supporting evidence on file.
On 11 March 2024 the landlord chased its contractor regarding the repair to the blocked guttering. It also called and emailed the resident to discuss her damp and mould issue. It said it would speak to its contractor and then contact the resident to update her.
On 13 March 2024 the works were referred to the landlord’s surveying team to carry out an inspection.
On 18 March 2024 the landlord noted that it had cleared the drains, but that there may be issues with outside drainage. It also noted asphalt was covering over an air brick in the resident’s property.
The landlord emailed the resident on 20 March 2024 to let her know that the damp and mould works were being reviewed by its surveying team. It also said that it had made the team aware of the resident’s household health issues.
On 12 April 2024 the landlord’s surveyor visited the block. It noted the issues with the air brick and also other water ingress and damp and mould issues in the block, affecting other leaseholders. It said the roof had been replaced previously and there were ongoing issues with guttering and the roof space and tiles. The surveyor’s response focussed on issues in respect of a different property to the resident’s. It did not visit the inside of the resident’s flat.
On 17 April 2024 the resident chased the works as her issues with damp and mould and water ingress were continuing. The landlord responded on 18 April 2024. It said a contractor would attend that day to rectify issues with the air brick, which were causing the damp and mould. This was repaired on 30 April 2024 due to the resident’s availability. It removed and sealed the air brick vent, dismantled the bricks, and fitted a new air vent above floor level. It said the roofing issue was separate and was not causing the damp and mould issue.
On 30 April 2024, the resident reported that an overflow pipe was leaking outside her window. The landlord advised the resident that this was her responsibility as she was a leaseholder, and it would be coming from her flat.
On 1 May 2024 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. She said:
1. The damp and mould had been ongoing since she moved into the flat 2 years previously and she had to buy new furniture and clothes which were damaged by the damp and mould. She sent in photographs of the damage.
2. She had reported water ingress on 27 December 2023 and the work order had been cancelled.
3. Her husband had been sleeping in the living room due to the damp in the bedroom. He suffered from a respiratory illness.
4. She had concerns about the air brick in her property.
5. She wanted £40,000 compensation for damage to her husband’s health, and damage to her flat and belongings.
6. She wanted the repair to be completed.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 3 May 2024. It told her she would receive a response within 10 working days.
The resident chased the works on 28 and 30 May 2024. On 3 June 2024, she asked the Ombudsman to intervene as she had heard nothing back from the landlord.
On 4 June 2024 the resident reported a broken downpipe and blocked guttering. She said it was overflowing onto her window. The landlord did not progress this repair as it stated it was a duplicate job.
The landlord’s contractor repaired the guttering on 10 June 2024.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 4 September 2024. It asked it to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint by 11 September 2024.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 12 September 2024. It said the following:
1. It apologised for the delay. It needed additional time to complete its investigations and understood the resident’s frustration.
2. It raised a job to repair the airbrick on 19 April 2024. Its surveyor noted it had been covered with tarmac and contractors attended on 30 April and carried out successful works. The new air vent would guarantee consistent air flow throughout the property.
3. It raised a job for the guttering installation and repair on 27 February 2024. Its contractors attended on 5 March 2024 and found that it needed further works. It needed a quote variation for the works due to extra costs. This had been referred to its surveying team and would be assigned to a specialist contractor. The surveyor was chasing the works and would be in contact with the resident to update her regarding the repair.
4. The damp and mould tied in with the guttering which the surveyor “suspected” was causing the water damage.
5. All the jobs above were raised and attended to within the timeframe stated in its repairs policy. However, it had not updated the resident regarding the roof repair so apologised for the communication issues, delays and impact.
6. It was not responsible for “making good” any damage to the inside of the resident’s property as she was a leaseholder. It suggested she contact the landlord’s building insurer and gave the resident the contact details.
7. If the resident believed it was liable for damaged belongings within her home, she should claim on her contents insurance, or the landlord’s insurance.
8. It found fault with one of the repairs (it does not state which) and awarded £250 for time, and trouble, disruption and inconvenience.
9. It offered £250 for the delay and frustration with the complaint. It said it had learned from the complaint.
The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 19 September 2024. She said she was not happy with the landlord’s response, or the compensation offered.
The landlord received 2 separate reports of a roof leak from other residents of the block between 30 September 2024 and 12 November 2024.
This Service contacted the landlord on 20 November 2024. It asked it to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint no later than 27 November 2024, as it had not replied within the complaint handling code (the Code) timeframes.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 22 November 2024. It emailed her on 3 December 2024 to apologise for the delay. It responded to her stage 2 complaint on 5 December 2024. It said the following:
1. It apologised for the delay as it had received a lot of complaints.
2. It reiterated its stage 1 response.
3. It had repaired the guttering on 10 June 2024.
4. It duly considered and scheduled all works dating back to 27 December 2023. The only exception to this was her report of 27 December 2023, when she had reported a leak coming through her flat from the roof and guttering. It had cancelled this, due to a lack of further information.
5. She needed to make a claim via her contents insurance for the damages to her belongings. This is because it had not accepted liability for service failures, leading to the damage.
6. She could also submit a claim directly to the landlord’s insurers.
7. It could not justify any further compensation. It upheld the resident’s complaint regarding the complaint handling.
8. It did not uphold the complaint in relation to the leak (guttering) but appreciated that it had taken an extended amount of time to reach a resolution.
9. It would learn from the resident’s complaint and use this as part of its service improvement programme.

After the internal complaints procedure

The resident contacted us on 20 December 2024. She said that the leaks were ongoing, and repairs were still needed outside the property. As an outcome to her complaint the resident wanted the external repairs to be completed, some internal repairs and increased compensation. She said the mould in the flat had adversely affected her household.
We contacted the resident on 20 March 2025. She said that the water ingress was continuing, and that her bedroom was still full of damp and mould. She said her household had to sleep in the living room due to the damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has said that the handling of this matter by the landlord has led to a deterioration in the health of the household. Whilst we appreciate the resident’s concerns, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
The resident has stated that the handling of this matter has led to damage to her personal property. Whilst we acknowledge the resident’s concerns, this is not something we can investigate. This matter is best progressed via an insurance claim or courts process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into her property and subsequent damp and mould

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it complies with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System 2006 (HHRS) as well as other relevant legislation.
It is responsible for the structure of the building and keeping it in good repair, in line with the terms of the tenancy agreement and repairs policy. This includes external walls and brickwork, roof damage, communal balconies, communal stack or waste pipes and communal ventilation systems.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that leaseholders are responsible for their own property. If the issue is in a communal area or is a structural building defect, the landlord is responsible for the repairs. If damp is caused by building defects, the landlord will repair or replace the fault.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that in the case of leaseholders, it will carry out improvement work when it finds structural or other significant problems that are leading to damp and mould. This includes, roof damage, communal pipes, and communal ventilation systems, brickwork, rendering and cladding.
It will repair plumbing leaks which are caused by communal pipework and the roof, guttering and communal drainage systems. It will also repair window, door and sill leaks.
Diagnosis of damp, mould and condensation is carried out by its in-house surveyors, specialist consultants and repair teams. Remedial damp and mould works are carried out by its repair teams and external contractors. Its neighbourhood teams are responsible for keeping residents updated regarding progress of works.
The landlord operates a tiered repairs service as follows:
1. Emergency repairs will be attended to within 4 hours. (This includes repairs that need a rapid response to safeguard residents or the structure of the building).
2. Recalls (works which have failed to pass a quality inspection, or where the resident confirms works have not been completed) must be completed within 5 calendar days.
3. Non urgent repairs required to rectify a fault will be completed within 28 calendar days.
4. Programmed repairs (works needing additional time due to manufacture, complexity or specialist trade – roofing, window replacements, scaffolding, damp works) will be completed within 60 calendar days.
5. Specialist works (works which are complex in nature and need a specialist contractor/technical lead in diagnosing and managing the works) will be completed within 60 calendar days.
The repairs policy states that it may consider carrying out some repairs as a higher priority where the resident or someone in their household is known to be vulnerable or needing assistance.
The Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) classes damp and mould as a category 1 hazard. This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould, published in October 2021, states that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. It further states that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould should reflect the urgency of the issues.
It is not reasonable that the resident reported leaks into her property on 27 December 2023 and the landlord did not raise a job for this until 27 February 2024. This was 2 months before it even raised a job, and considerably outside of its policy repair timescales of 60 days completion. This caused the resident distress and frustration and impacted on the enjoyment of her home.
It was inappropriate that it raised a job and then cancelled it as it did not receive any further information. We would have expected the landlord to inspect the property/communal grounds to find out the location and cause of the leak. Further, it is not reasonable that it did not update the resident that it had cancelled the job. This caused the resident distress, and inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
Further, there is no evidence on file that it inspected the block before 27 February 2024, to check for leaks and try to find an interim solution. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience and impacted on the enjoyment of her home. It could also have contributed to the damp and mould worsening in the resident’s home. This is of particular concern when the resident had told the landlord that her husband suffered from respiratory issues and that this was affecting his health. The landlord did not complete the repair within its own timescales and made no allowances for the household vulnerabilities. The landlord did nothing to expedite the repair which is a failing and not resident focussed.
Good record keeping is a prerequisite to providing a good housing management service. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that although it referred the resident’s damp and mould, and leaks issues to its surveying team on 18 March 2024 and the team attended the block on 12 April 2024, the landlord’s surveyor did not visit the resident’s address. Instead, it focussed on an entirely different property, which had no connection with the resident’s issues. It is unclear why the surveying team did not address the issues with the resident’s home. This points to poor communication and poor record keeping. This is a serious failing on the part of the landlord. This caused the resident distress and frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the matter. It also continued to impact on the enjoyment of her home. This is further inappropriate, as the landlord was aware of the household respiratory issues.
It was also unreasonable that on 18 April 2024, the landlord told the resident that the water ingress into her property had nothing to do with the roofing, when its internal correspondence noted that there were ongoing issues with the communal roof and guttering. This is not resident focussed and caused the resident additional distress and frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue. It also continued to impact on the enjoyment of her home.
Further, there is no evidence on file, that a roof inspection was carried out, and the resident reports that leaks continue into her home as of 12 March 2025. This is a serious failing on the part of the landlord which continued to cause the resident significant distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will carry out major works such as roofing within 60 calendar days, and there is no evidence that this has been completed. The resident reported this in December 2023 which is now 15 months later. This is an unacceptable delay and a serious failing on the part of the landlord, which continued to impact on the resident’s enjoyment of her home. This is of particular concern, due to the household vulnerabilities, which the landlord was aware of.
Although the landlord did attend to carry out initial works to the guttering on 18 March 2024 works were not completed until 10 June 2024. This was a significant delay and outside of the landlord’s 60-day repair timescales. This continued to cause the resident distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
There were significant delays in carrying out inspections and works. This is particularly concerning due to the household vulnerabilities, which the landlord was aware of. There were serious communication issues and there is no evidence that the landlord has inspected the communal roof. As such, a finding of severe maladministration is made, along with orders for redress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her personal property

The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy sets out that it may not consider offering a remedy or paying compensation for damages covered under contents or buildings insurance.
For leaseholders, it says it may refund or contribute towards an insurance excess if it is proven that it has delayed handling of a repair or defect.
It offers compensation for distress, inconvenience and frustration between £50 and upwards of £1000 depending on the severity and duration of the issue. It says that it recognises that distress or inconvenience caused by a service failure can be compounded by vulnerabilities such as health issues. Its compensation payment reflects the additional distress caused by these circumstances.
In both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, the landlord advised the resident to contact both its insurer and the resident’s own insurer to pursue the matter. This was an appropriate response and in line with its policy. As such, a finding of no maladministration is made.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with faulty air bricks

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete non urgent work within 28 calendar days.
The landlord noted that asphalt was covering the resident’s air brick on 18 March 2024. It scheduled works for 18 April 2024. This is 31 calendar days later which is slightly outside of the landlord’s repair timescales. As this was a short delay and the repair was completed, a finding of no maladministration is made.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred and, if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.’
The landlord defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made.”
The landlord’s complaints policy says that:
1. Stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days, and it will respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
2. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 10 working days, and it will respond within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The landlord offers between £251 and over £400 for a serious failure in its complaint handling.
The records show that the resident attempted to make a complaint on 27 February 2024. There is no evidence on file that the landlord progressed the matter. This is a failing, which caused the resident distress and frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
There were significant and protracted delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 1 May 2024 and the landlord did not provide a full response until 12 September 2024, after intervention from the Ombudsman. This is 90 working days and an unacceptable delay.
The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 19 September 2024 and the landlord did not provide a response until 3 December 2024, again, after intervention from this Service. This is 53 working days and another unreasonable delay.
The prolonged delays caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the issue. Further, it prevented the resident from referring the issue to us sooner.
Although the landlord offered the resident £250 compensation for its complaint handling and delays, this was not proportionate to the distress and frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it offers over £400 for a serious failure with complaint handling. Further, it did not consider the significant impact on the resident’s household. Also, it is inappropriate that the landlord did not respond to both stage 1 and stage 2 complaints until the Ombudsman intervened. This is not resident focussed and compounded the resident’s frustration.
Further, in both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, the landlord said that it had identified learning from the complaint, but it did not substantiate this. In fact, after the delays in its stage 1 response, it also delayed its stage 2 response.
Further, it did not apologise that it cancelled the roofing inspection when the resident reported a leak on 27 December 2023. It stated it had been cancelled due to a lack of further information. This is not resident focussed and caused the resident distress and frustration. It did not offer the resident a timeline of when or if the roof would be inspected. This is inappropriate and continued to cause the resident distress and frustration and impacted on the substantive issue being resolved.
The landlord went some way in providing redress to the resident. It apologised for the delays and offered £250 compensation. It also said it had learned from the complaint.
However, it did not go far enough to provide redress to the adverse effect on the resident. It also provided no evidence of learning from the complaint. As such, a finding of service failure is made, along with orders for redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into the property and subsequent damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damages to personal property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with faulty air bricks.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology needs to be from a member of its senior leadership team.
2. Arrange for a suitably qualified person to inspect the communal roof and guttering and provide a timeline of repairs.
3. Arrange for a suitably qualified person to inspect the resident’s windows and windowsills and provide a timeline of repairs if appropriate.
4. Pay the resident £1200. This replaces the £500 already offered. This is to be paid directly into her bank account and not to be offset against any service charge arrears (if applicable). This is made up as follows:
  1. £1100 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the leaks and damp and mould issues.
  2. £100 for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.