Peabody Trust (202311221)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311221

Peabody Trust

24 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:
1. Report of a leak into her property, the associated repairs, and repairs to her windows.
2. Complaint about the length of time that scaffolding was in place at the property.
The Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord who is a housing association. The property is a 1 bedroom, mezzanine flat on the second and third floor of a building. The landlord is the freeholder of the building.
The landlord raised a repair order on 25 October 2022, following a report by the resident of a leak into her flat. She reported that water was coming through her window frame during heavy rain and dripping on the walls. The landlord’s contractor carried out inspections on 8 and 9 November 2022. It found that the water leak was due to either “a sealant joint or a brickwork issue”. The contractor noted that it had completed repairs to other sections of the building and that the brickwork was very weathered. It said that it needed to put up scaffolding to reach the area and complete repairs. The landlord’s repair records show that its contractor put up the scaffolding between 8 and 16 December 2022. It then referred the repair to its roofing contractor on 19 January 2023. The roofing contractor was to provide a date for its attendance.
The resident completed the landlord’s online complaint form on 7 March 2023. In this she said that:
1. She had raised a repair request following a water leak through her windows. She had a repair order reference, but this had been cancelled.
2. She wanted an update on the repair and what works the landlord had done.
3. The contractor had told her that the repair works would begin once the scaffolding was in place. She said that the scaffolding had been up since November 2022.
4. As the scaffolding had been in place for 3 months, she wanted to know what this had cost.
The landlord replied to the resident on 9 March 2023. It gave her the correct works order number and said that its contractor had passed the works to its roofing contractor in January 2023. It had no further update and had been unable to speak with its contractor. It suggested that the resident call its contractor directly for an update. The resident wrote back to the landlord to say that the contractor had told her that it would attend on 9 March 2023, but it had not. She said that she believed that the landlord should be better able to gather information from its contractor. She asked it to tell her what repairs it had done so far and when it would take down the scaffolding. She also asked who was paying for the scaffolding.
The landlord’s home ownership team replied to the resident on 25 March 2023. In this it apologised for the delay in its reply to her email. It said that:
1. Its contractor had attended on 17 March 2023. The contractor had found that there were cracks on the walls near the windows, along with issues with the roof. It had noted that areas of the walls needed repointing. The contractor had also found that the seals around the windows were “gone, leaving large gaps and small holes in the brickwork”. It also found that the wooden windows were in poor condition.
2. While on site its contractor has cleared a section of guttering.
3. The contractors had sent its report to the landlord so that it could agree and action the next stage of the repairs. Its contractor should now be in contact with the resident.
4. Its contractor would carry out works to the external brickwork which should remedy any gaps around the window frames. “However, if rain still continues to get in through your windows, you will then need to have them repaired/replaced as necessary as they are your responsibility”.
5. It would remove the scaffolding within 2 weeks of it completing the repairs.
6. The cost of the scaffolding would depend on how long it was in place. As it was for a communal repair it would appear in the service charge for 2022-23. The resident could raise a challenge to the cost on receiving the bill if she was unhappy with it.
7. The delays that had occurred had been due to the contractors involved being subcontractors of its main contractor. It was reliant on the subcontractor’s availability. Further, it had been unable to carry out external works in bad weather.
The resident replied to the landlord on 29 March 2023. She said that the contractor had not contacted her. The landlord opened a complaint case on 19 April 2023. It sent an acknowledgement to her on this date and said that it would reply to her complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process within 10 working days. It recorded that her complaint was about:
1. A repair and the next steps.
2. Responsibility for the windows in her flat.
3. Scaffolding costs.
4. Cyclical works to the building.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 May and 1 June 2023 as she had not received a reply to her complaint. The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 June 2023. It apologised for its lack of communication and that she was still waiting for an update. It explained that there had been changes within its complaints team and her case had not been reallocated. It said that it had raised this with a manager who would update her within the next 5 working days. It said that it was following up the repair and would hopefully have an update within the next week.
The resident completed the landlord’s online complaint form on 5 June 2023. In this she said that:
1. She felt that she had been “fobbed off” and that the landlord had failed to follow its complaint procedure.
2. She wanted her complaint dealt with or referred to the Housing Ombudsman.
3. The landlord had provided a poor standard of maintenance and repair to her building. It had also provided a poor level of customer service. She said that its complaint handling was unacceptable and that she believed it had mishandled her repair.
4. She had first raised her complaint in March 2023. She gave a history of her complaint and the outstanding repair.
The landlord acknowledged this on 8 June 2023. It said that it would reply at stage 2 of its complaints process within 20 working days.
The landlord’s repair records show that on 19 June 2023 it carried out works to “repoint the gable elevation of the building” and “repaired damaged areas of sealant”. It removed the scaffolding on 6 July 2023.
On 27 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said that it had received her complaint on 19 April 2023. It had passed this to the officer on 16 June 2023. It thanked her for speaking with it. It set out the detail of her complaint and what she was looking for as an outcome. It noted that she had experienced a leak into her home and that the windows and frames were in poor condition. It also noted that she was concerned about the cost of scaffolding and that there had been a lack of maintenance to the building over the last 13 years. It provided a summary of the points she had raised, including a timeline of events. It set out the next steps as follows:
1. It had contacted its contractor. It had raised a new works order for the external brickwork and pointing. It gave the new order number and said that its contractor would contact the resident within five working days to book an appointment.
2. It would monitor the progress of these repairs and act as a single point of contact for her.
3. Once the repair was complete, it would ask her to confirm that she was satisfied with the outcome.
4. It would then “review [her] repair and complaint journey, and consider any compensation offer that may be applicable”.
5. If she were still unhappy and it could not find a resolution, she could ask for it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process.
The resident followed up on 29 June 2023 as she was still waiting for an update on the repair. She said that a roofer had attended but that they had not told her what they had done. The landlord replied to the resident on 16 July 2023. It apologised that the issues remained unresolved. It said that it had “reached out to the relevant parties”. It would update her as soon as it had information. It acknowledged her request to escalate her complaint. It asked her to set out why she was dissatisfied and what outcome she was looking for. This correspondence included a paragraph that explained that if she decided to escalate her complaint it would withdraw any compensation offered within its stage 1 response. It said that this was because any compensation only applied where it had resolved the complaint at stage 1. It further said that “whilst compensation can be increased as a result of escalation, it can also be reduced”.
The resident replied to the landlord on 17 July 2023. She said that she had not received a clear response to her original complaint and the questions she had asked. She said that she:
1. Wanted a breakdown of the repair activity.
2. Confirmation that window frame repairs were not her responsibility.
3. Details of the cost of the scaffolding that had been in place for 6 months, together with confirmation that the landlord would take responsibility for these costs.
4. A written indication of when the next cyclical works were to be done.
On 24 July 2023 the landlord confirmed that it had escalated her complaint. It said that it would provide a reply within 20 working days. The resident chased the landlord for a reply on 22 August 2023. Following contact from the resident, this service intervened on 12 September 2023, asking the landlord to reply to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 15 September 2023. It said that it had carried out an independent review of her complaint. The letter set out the questions she had raised and the outcome she was looking for. In the letter the landlord:
1. Said it was sorry that she had found it difficult to engage with it about her repair and through the complaints process.
2. Provided the detail of the 2 repair orders it had raised. It had raised the first order on 25 October 2022 for the water leak into her flat. It noted that its contractor had completed the works under this order on 21 July 2023. It had raised a further order raised on 26 June 2023. This was cancelled on 10 July 2023 as the repairs had been completed under the first order.
3. Said that window frames were within the landlord’s remit to repair and replace. Other aspects such as the window seals were the responsibility of the leaseholder. It further confirmed that the inspection had found that the window frames were old and in poor condition, and that the seals around the windows had “gone leaving gaps in the brickwork”.
4. Said that the works it did were based on a schedule of rates. This was a fixed cost for a repair and was not related to how long the works took. It said that there would be no extra charge for the scaffolding having been in place for 6 months.
5. Explained that the resident could request to inspect the documents about charges included within her service charge under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It said she could do this once she had received her charges and provided her with an email address for its property account team.
6. Said that, as an outcome from her complaint, it had requested a stock condition survey. It said that it had preplanned renewal dates for windows, roofs and other communal elements. These dates were subject to change and dependent on their condition. It said that it would confirm the renewal dates following the stock condition survey.
7. It apologised for the service failure that had led to the escalation of her complaint. It said that it was undergoing a restructure to its repairs team. This would provide a more localised service.
8. It further apologised for the delays in responding at both stages of its complaints process. It had expanded its customer experience team to avoid delays with future complaints. It would keep her complaint open while it ensured that the outstanding actions were completed.
9. It offered her £550 compensation. It broke this down as:
  1. £250 for its complaint handling.
  2. £300 for her time, trouble and inconvenience.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaint process

The resident replied to the landlord on 18 September 2023. She thanked it for its response and the offer of compensation. She asked the landlord to give her the full detail of the repairs it had done. She also asked for more information about the preplanned dates for cyclical works and when it would carry out the stock condition survey. She said that over the last few years there had been several issues with broken roof tiles and blocked guttering causing flooding and water leaks. She said that this was damaging both the interior and exterior of the building.
On 6 October 2023 the landlord replied. It apologised for the delay. It said that it had kept her complaint open as it wanted to ensure that the planned renewal dates for her windows were based on the most recent survey. It confirmed that it had completed a stock condition survey in July 2023. It said that it would plan in the cyclical works over the next 3 years. It would write to residents closer to when the works were due to start. It said that it had provided a timeline for the repairs within its complaint responses at both stages. It said that it would not renew the window frame but could arrange a temporary repair if the renewal of the seals did not stop the leak. It asked her to confirm when she had renewed the window seals, and it could then arrange for an operative to assess any continuing leak.
In her reply on 16 October 2023 the resident confirmed her acceptance of the compensation offered and said that she was escalating her complaint to this service. She questioned the landlord saying she should repair the window seals when it had not said this before. She said that the works recommended were to repoint the external brickwork, but she questioned if it had completed this work.
The resident sent follow up emails to the landlord on 4 and 11 December 2023, 3 January and 9 February 2024. The landlord has provided no evidence that it responded to these contacts. In conversation with us on 12 March 2025, the resident said that she has not received the compensation offered as an outcome to her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

We cannot investigate complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. We have not therefore considered the resident’s complaint about the level of costs for the scaffolding or the liability for these. We have focused on the length of time that it was in place and the reasonableness of the landlord’s response to her enquiries.
Should the resident remain dissatisfied with the charges made she may wish to challenge the reasonableness of the service charge by applying to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

Landlord obligations, policy and procedure

The resident has a lease on the property. This sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the resident and the landlord. Section 5 of the lease covers what the landlord has agreed to do. Under the heading, to repair the building/external common parts at section 5.3.a. the lease says that the landlord will “maintain, repair, redecorate and renew … the roof foundations and main structure of the building and all external parts thereof”. This includes the windows on the outside of the flat, excluding the glass. The resident’s obligations are set out in section 3. This says at 3.3. that the resident will “keep in repair … the interior of the premises and the glass in the windows …”.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out the landlord’s responsibilities for repairs. It says that it is generally responsible for the common areas where it is the freeholder. Further, its “leaseholders are normally responsible for all repairs within their home and we, as the landlord, are normally responsible for communal areas and repairs resulting from our action or inaction”. The policy references the lease as setting out responsibilities for repairs and that it will follow the lease in deciding responsibility for repairs.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaint procedure. Within its definition of a complaint the policy says that “a resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for a complaint to be identified, registered and treated as such”. The policy says that it will not deal with first time requests for a service, repair requests or a request for information through its complaints process.
The response timeline for each stage is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It says it will acknowledge a complaint at each stage within 5 working days. The landlord will then respond to a complaint within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. If it is unable to respond to the complaint within this time it will agree with the resident an extension and notify them of the same.

Report of a leak into her property, the associated repairs, and repairs to her windows.

The resident first reported water entering her property in October 2022. She said that this was rainwater during a storm that had come in around the windows. The landlord inspected the windows and said that it would need scaffolding to access the area externally and carry out a repair. It put up the scaffolding in December 2022 and instructed its roofing contractor in January 2023. While there were delays within this timeline, the landlord took reasonable steps to inspect the issue raised by the resident and arrange the required repairs, including the means to access these.
While the landlord’s initial response was appropriate, there is no evidence that it followed up with its contractor to ensure that it had completed the repairs. There was also no correspondence with the resident about the progress of the repair. The landlord only acted following the resident’s contact in March 2023, with no evidence that it followed up the repairs before this. In its response to the resident on 9 March 2023 it suggested that she should contact its contractor as it had been unable to do so. There was a lack of ownership by the landlord of the repairs process, placing responsibility for following up with its contractor on to the resident.
The landlord’s repair records show that its contractor visited the resident on 17 March 2023. The contractor provided feedback to the landlord on 22 March 2023, setting out the repairs needed. It noted the poor condition of the window frames. It further recorded that the seals around the windows “are gone”. It said that there were gaps around the windows and in the brickwork. The landlord’s repair records show that it chased its contractor on 17 April and again on 22 May 2023. It then recorded that the contractor was waiting for a member of staff to return from annual leave. The contractor completed the repairs on 19 June 2023 and removed the scaffolding on 6 July 2023. Overall, the repair took 7 months to complete. This was a significant delay. There is no evidence that, outside of her complaints, the landlord maintained contact with the resident to provide her with updates. Further, it did not confirm that the eventually repair had rectified the issue of the water leak.
There was a lack of oversight shown by the landlord in managing the repairs. The evidence suggests that the landlord had delegated responsibility for managing the repairs to its main contractor. They then did not ensure that its subcontractor attended once the scaffolding was in place. There was no clear action plan as to the next steps once the scaffold was in place and how the repair would be progressed. There was a significant failure by the landlord to manage the repair works identified and maintain oversight of its contractors. It further did not ensure that it had completed the repair satisfactorily.
The landlord recorded that the resident’s windows were in poor condition. In its first response to the resident, it told her that the windows were her responsibility, as a leaseholder, to replace. This is contrary to the information contained within her lease. This says that the landlord has responsibility for the windows, while the resident is responsible for replacing the glass. This was incorrect advice. When the resident challenged this point, the landlord did not respond directly, moving this to a formal complaint. It did not address this point within its stage 1 response. At stage 2 it said that “generally window frame repairs fall under [the landlord’s] remit…”. It went on to say that all other aspects, including the window seals were the responsibility of the leaseholder. It did not define what it meant by “window seals”. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with a clear definition of the parts of the window that she was responsible for and to have related this back to the repair that she had reported.
The landlord’s contractor said that the window seals had “gone”. In this it referred to there being gaps between the window frame and the brickwork. Further, in completing the repairs to the brickwork in June 2023, it recorded that it had repaired damaged areas of sealant. It is unclear why in later correspondence with the resident the landlord asked for her confirmation that she had repaired the window seals. When she challenged this, the landlord did not respond to her enquiry.
As an outcome to her stage 2 complaint, the landlord told the resident that it would arrange to carry out a stock condition survey. This was to identify the wider condition of the building and inform its future programme of works. It later told the resident that it had completed the survey in July 2023, ahead of its complaint response. It said that it would be developing a plan for works based on this survey. It said that the window replacement would be part of its cyclical programme within the next 3 years. The landlord has provided no evidence that it further wrote to the resident to tell her when it will replace her windows and others within the building. There was a failure by the landlord to provide the resident with clear information about her responsibility for repairs. It also did not provide a clear action plan for repairs that it would do in the future. The landlord’s actions amount to maladministration in its management of these repairs.
The landlord must provide the resident with clear information around her responsibility for repairs to her windows. It should contact her to ensure that the repairs that it did do have stopped further leaks and it should tell her when it will be replacing her windows.

Complaint about the length of time that scaffolding was in place at the property.

As outlined above the landlord put up scaffolding outside the resident’s property in December 2022. It instructed its roofing contractor in January 2023 but did not follow up to ensure that its contractor then attended. It only acted when the resident contacted it in March 2023. While it recorded a visit to the resident on 17 March 2023, it did not complete the identified repair works until June 2023. This left the scaffolding in place for 6 months, until 6 July 2022 when it was removed. This was a significant failure by the landlord to manage the progress of repairs. To ensure that having put the scaffolding in place that the contractor attended and used the scaffold to complete the repairs within as short a period as possible.
The presence of scaffolding over such an extended period would have caused inconvenience to residents within the building where the scaffold passed by their windows. The landlord’s records show that the resident had raised concerns around security when the scaffold was first put in place. This was because she was away from her home at the time. That it then remained in place for an extended period was inappropriate in the circumstances.
When asked by the resident who would cover the cost of scaffolding being in place for such a long period of time, the landlord did not provide a clear answer as to how the costs would be calculated. In its stage 1 response it said that this would be based on how long the scaffolding was in place. In its stage 2 it said that all repairs were based on a schedule of rate and therefore there would be no extra costs based on the length of time that the scaffolding was in place. It did not however acknowledge the incorrect information it had originally provided or offer an apology for the confusion this may have caused. Further, it did not consider the impact on residents of having scaffolding in place over an extended period.
The landlord’s provision of conflicting information in its responses amounts to maladministration. An order has been made for the landlord to provide information to the resident about the cost of the scaffolding. It is further recommended that the landlord work with its contractor to ensure that it has a process in place to avoid the same situation reoccurring. It should ensure that it only puts up scaffolding once it has the relevant contractor lined up to complete the repair and that the disruption of scaffolding can be kept to a minimum.

Complaint handling.

When investigating a case, 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: be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; put things right and learn from outcomes.
There were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint at each stage. Further, it did not record her complaint at the earliest opportunity or take steps to put things right for her. There was also a lack of clarity in the progression of her complaint.
The resident first completed the landlord’s online complaint form on 7 March 2023. The landlord only registered her formal complaint on 19 April 2023, opening a complaint case on its internal systems. A total of 32 working days after the resident completed the online form. Between these 2 dates the landlord first contacted the resident to direct her to contact its contractors about the repair. Its home ownership team then responded to her on 25 March 2023. This provided a reply to the issues raised in her complaint. The landlord did not present this as a formal reply to her complaint or record it as such. It would have been appropriate for it to have done so. When the resident replied on 29 March 2023 and raised further queries based on points contained within this letter, the landlord did not respond. This was a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint for the resident and a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord opened a complaint case on 19 April 2023, acknowledging the resident’s complaint. There was then a significant delay in it providing its formal stage 1 response. This it sent to the resident on 27 June 2023, 49 working days after it opened the complaint case and over 3 months since she first raised a complaint. There is evidence of contact between the resident and the landlord in May and June 2023, as it responded to chases for updates from the resident. The resident had to chase her complaint with the landlord as it did not maintain regular contact with her, either about her complaint or her repair. This was a significant failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.
There was then an area of overlap in the landlord’s actions as it initially agreed to escalate her complaint ahead of it providing her with a stage 1 response. Contact made with the resident suggested that a manager was to intervene and ensure her complaint was progressed, but the landlord has provided no evidence that this happened. There was a further delay before the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 27 June 2023. This did not give clear answers to the questions she had raised. Again, there is no evidence that the landlord followed through on the actions set out in this response, to follow up on her repairs and assess future compensation. The Code requires a landlord to see any actions proposed in a complaint response through to completion. That it did not do so was a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
When the resident further questioned the landlord’s response and asked for it to escalate her complaint, the landlord’s correspondence appears designed to dissuade the escalation of a complaint. It included a paragraph that said that it would withdraw any compensation awarded and that it could reduce compensation on review. The Code requires that landlords do not refuse to escalate complaints through all stages of its procedure. The wording used by the landlord in this instance gives the impression that it is looking to discourage the escalation of a complaint. This is not in line with the spirt of the Code and is a failure by the landlord.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was confused in its process. It did not deliver clear answers asked for by the resident. Further, it took almost 6 months to complete its complaint process and provide replies to the resident. She continued to seek clarity from the landlord, but it did not respond further. The landlord’s failure to follow its complaints policy timescales and the significant delay in responding to the resident’s complaint amounts maladministration.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s offer, made in its stage 2 response of £550 compensation in respect of its poor complaint handling and the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident. Given the extended time over which the resident was raising her complaint and the landlord’s failure to effectively address all these issues promptly, this offer was not proportionate. An order has been made, in line with the Services guidance on remedies for an additional amount of compensation in recognition of the failures in the landlord’s communication and the time and trouble cause to the resident. As the resident has confirmed that she has not received the compensation awarded by the landlord this has been included with the order made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak into her property, the associated repairs, and repairs to her windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the length of time that scaffolding was in place at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the identified failings. This should be in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies.
2. Pay the resident a total of £450 compensation. This is calculated as follows:
  1. £150 for the delay in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. £100 for the time and trouble caused to the resident in having to pursue the repair and complaint with the landlord.
  3. £200 for the inconvenience of having scaffold in place over an extended period and the delay in completing the repair.
3. This is in addition to the landlord’s earlier offer of £550 at stage 2 of its complaints process. The landlord must provide evidence of that it has paid the resident the total sum of £1000 within the timescale set out above.
4. The landlord must provide the resident with clear information around her responsibility for repairs to her windows. It should contact her to ensure that the repairs that it did do have stopped further leaks and it should tell her when it will be replacing her windows. Further, it must tell the resident how it calculates the cost of scaffolding. It should provide a copy of its correspondence with the resident on these points as evidence of its compliance with this order.

Recommendations

The landlord should work with its contractor to ensure that it has a process in place to avoid the same situation outlined within this report reoccurring. It should ensure that it only puts up scaffolding when it has the relevant contractor lined up to complete the repair. It should ensure that the disruption of scaffolding can be kept to a minimum.