Peabody Trust (202314279)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314279

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:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the adequacy of the insulation in the home.
2. Handling of the formal complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She resides in the property with her partner and 2 children.
The landlord’s operative attended the property on 31 May 2022 in response to the resident’s concerns about low temperatures and condensation. The operative reported that the property was unusually cold. They said they were unsure about whether the walls were insulated and said there may be benefit in doubling the insulation in the roof. They suggested that a surveyor assess the insulation.
On 5 October 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. She said it had failed to address the insulation and it was passing her from person to person without anyone taking responsibility. She said her children had asthma and the cold was unbearable.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 21 October 2022. It said it had been unable to find the right person to address the matter, but the complaint handler would monitor and progress any works.
The resident escalated the complaint on 18 May 2023 and the landlord provided a further stage 1 response on 28 June 2023. It discussed its handling of other repairs and offered her £50 for delays in its complaint response.
The resident responded to the landlord and noted it had not addressed her concerns about the lack of insulation. On 7 September 2023 she escalated the complaint. She said she had contacted it numerous times but it had not responded. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 26 October 2023 following a request from this Service.
The landlord provided its final response on 16 November 2023. It said it had:
1. Considered the insulation in the property to be sufficient based on:
  1. The energy performance certificate (EPC) which gave the property an overall score of ‘B’ and rated the walls as ‘good’.
  2. The thickness of the loft insulation, which was in line with government guidance requiring a minimum of 250mm for pitched roofs.
2. Liaised with its sustainability and energy teams who would survey the property to investigate further.
3. Delayed due to a lack of knowledge about insulation and EPCs amongst staff, which it was addressing through information provided on its ‘knowledge hub’.
4. Delayed in responding to the complaint and would provide feedback to staff to ensure it addresses complaints in a meaningful way at stage 1.
5. Refused to reimburse her for items she had purchased to heat the home but offered a total of £450 compensation comprised of:
  1. £150 for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  2. £300 for complaint handling failures.
The landlord scheduled an assessment to update the EPC on 5 December 2023. Overall, the property scored ‘C’ and the walls and roof were rated ‘good’. The landlord also conducted a heat loss survey on 1 February 2024. The surveyor found that the loft insulation was 100mm thick and said the cavity wall insulation (CWI) seemed insufficient or non-existent as the property was colder on one side. They also recommended that the landlord replace several radiators.
The resident reports that the landlord has not installed additional insulation to date and she is still experiencing low temperatures in the property which have caused her and her family anxiety and discomfort. She would like the landlord to adequately insulate the home.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In its complaint response of 28 June 2022, the landlord offered the resident £300 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience related to its handling of several repairs. Because the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the adequacy of the insulation within this response, we have concluded that it offered this compensation solely in relation to its handling of other repairs, outside of the remit of this investigation.

Handling of concerns about insulation

Under the terms of the tenancy, and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair and working order.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. ‘Excess cold’ is one of the 29 hazards listed in the HHSRS. Guidance for the HHSRS sets out that a healthy indoor temperature is approximately 21°C and that temperatures below 16°C, may pose serious health risks, particularly for elderly or more vulnerable residents. It is not clear what temperatures the resident experienced but she explained she was struggling to keep the family warm despite using the heating.
The government also sets standards for insulating homes under Building Regulations. Insulation in roofs must not allow for thermal transmission above a certain threshold. The thickness of the insulation required to achieve the transmission target depends on the type used and where it is installed. According to the landlord’s final response, the thickness required for the resident’s roof was 250 to 270mm.
Landlords must ensure their properties have a valid EPC. The EPC rates the energy efficiency of the property on a scale of ‘A’ to ‘G’, with ‘A’ being the most efficient. Landlords must ensure their properties have a minimum rating of ‘E’.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out timeframes for responding to repairs. It should complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days. More complex repairs that require a specialist contractor should be diagnosed and completed within 60 calendar days.
There is no record of when the resident first reported concerns about cold temperatures in the property, but the landlord first attended on 31 May 2022 and recommended further investigation of the insulation. As this could be considered specialist work, the landlord should have aimed to investigate and resolve any issues with the insulation within a further 60 days.
The landlord arranged for its contractor to attend on 19 August 2022. It has not provided records explaining the purpose and outcome of this visit. However, in its final response it acknowledged the contractor did not survey the insulation. The landlord’s response was therefore delayed and inconsistent with its operative’s recommendation, causing the resident inconvenience and time and trouble.
The resident was clear in her complaint of October 2022 that she had been waiting for it to investigate the insulation since May 2022. In its initial complaint response, it assured her it would monitor and progress this. However, it was almost another 2 months before it conducted a damp survey on 16 December 2022. It had now been 6 and a half months since its operative had recommended a survey of the insulation, which was an unreasonable delay.
The resident had reported damp and mould, so it was appropriate for the landlord to conduct a damp survey. The surveyor recommended measures to tackle the mould including a mould wash and installation of passive vents. However, there is no evidence the survey included an assessment of the insulation. Poor insulation can cause damp and mould and, given the resident and its operative had raised concerns about cold temperatures and the adequacy of the insulation, the landlord should have considered this as part of its assessment. By not inspecting the insulation or carrying out a heat survey the LL did not have a full assessment of the situation.
The resident followed up with the landlord to enquire about the insulation following the damp survey, but there is no evidence it replied to her, and no indication it was actively exploring the issue. The resident’s complaint had provided the landlord with an opportunity to identify and address why progress had stalled but it failed to do so causing ongoing drift, to the frustration and detriment of the resident.
On 20 March 2023 a new complaint handler took over. According to the summary provided by the landlord in its final response, they informed the resident the contractor was not addressing the insulation. The landlord has provided no records that explain its decision-making process or that of its contractor on this. The landlord should keep full records of its communications and its activities in relation to repairs. This is to ensure an audit trail and accountability for the actions it takes or does not take. A recommendation has been made to this effect below.
In response to an escalation request from the resident, and her multiple enquiries throughout June 2023, the landlord provided another stage 1 response on 28 June 2023. The response acknowledged delays in progressing other repairs but did not specifically address her concerns about the insulation and any action it was taking to investigate this. It had now been 13 months since its operative had attended and recommended an inspection of the insulation. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not only failed to act on this, but it also failed to acknowledge and address the issue in its response.
The resident was dissatisfied with the response and noted it did not address her concerns about the insulation. The landlord passed the complaint to a new complaint handler who contacted her on 25 July 2023 and said they would investigate this for her. However, there is no evidence they followed up on this, or communicated with her over the following weeks. It was a further failing of the landlord that it continued to communicate poorly with the resident throughout this period. This caused the resident ongoing frustration and resulted in her once again having to escalate her complaint. Despite this, the records suggest it only investigated the matter following a request from this Service that it respond to her complaint.
The landlord’s final response was detailed and it acknowledged failures in its communication and handling of the resident’s concerns about the insulation. It also identified relevant learning by posting information about how staff could access EPCs on its knowledge hub. However, because it had not completed appropriate investigations, it drew conclusions about the adequacy of the insulation without the full picture.
It outlined that it had reviewed the EPC and said the wall insulation was sufficient based on the EPC ratings. The landlord provided accurate information about the ratings, but the EPC score was based on an ‘assumption’ that the walls were insulated. Given the resident and its operative had reported that the property was unusually cold, this did not provide sufficient assurance. It should have investigated whether the wall insulation was present before coming to its conclusion.
It was reasonable of the landlord to say that the loft insulation was adequate based on the EPC. The EPC identified the thickness of the insulation (250mm) with the implication being that this had been checked as part of the certification. However, the EPC had expired in 2019, which the landlord should have identified sooner.
The landlord appropriately arranged for a contractor to complete an updated EPC and a heat loss survey as an outcome of the complaint. While the property retained a compliant energy rating on the updated EPC this was again based on an assumption there was CWI in the walls.
The EPC also reported that the loft insulation was only 200mm thick, rather than 250mm as per the previous assessment. According to the landlord’s position in its final response, this did not meet the necessary thickness of 250mm. However, the loft insulation was rated ‘good’ on the updated EPC. Regardless, the resident reports that the EPC assessor did not check the loft insulation. The subsequent heat loss survey also suggested that the property is inadequately insulated in both the roof and walls.
The resident reports that the landlord has taken no further action with regards the insulation following the heat loss survey, but it has replaced several radiators. It is unreasonable that the issue remains unresolved for the resident. While we recognise the landlord has taken some steps to address the cold temperatures, it has not done enough to ensure the insulation is sufficient. In internal correspondence from December 2023 a member of its gas team queried whether the property was properly insulated and noted any upgrades it made would be immaterial if the property is poorly insulated. It has failed to act on the findings of the survey and the advice of its own operatives.
The resident was clear in her initial complaint about the unbearable cold and her concerns for her children who have asthma. She has shared with this Service how anxious and stressed she has felt, and of her frustration in having to chase the landlord on this.
For this reason, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the adequacy of the insulation. We recognise the landlord’s admission of failure in its final response, the apology it made, and the steps it outlined to learn from its mistakes. However, it drew conclusions about the adequacy of the insulation without conducting sufficient enquiries and delayed unnecessarily in arranging for the heat loss survey. It had also failed to act on the findings of the survey. It must do more to investigate and address any issues with the insulation.
In its final response the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience it caused in having to chase it for a response. We understand it has also offered an additional £150 following its final response for ongoing delays in resolving the matter up to April 2024.
Based on the landlord’s failure to investigate the resident’s concerns appropriately at an earlier opportunity, and in recognition that the issue remains outstanding for the resident, this offer is insufficient. The landlord should pay the resident a total of £600. This includes the amount already offered and reflects the detriment caused by its failure in line with our remedies guidance. It also aligns with its own compensation policy which allows for payments up to this amount where it has taken an extended time to complete actions and failed to communicate.
The resident explained that she purchased thickly lined curtains and a gas heater to help with cold temperatures in the property. In its final response the landlord said it would not reimburse her for these items because it considered the insulation to be adequate. As discussed, the landlord should make further enquiries about the insulation and review its position on reimbursement of these items. A recommendation has been made to this effect.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a complaints policy which outlines its standards and timeframes for complaint handling. According to the policy, the landlord will log complaints at stage 1 within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. It will respond to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. These timeframes align with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident complained on 5 October 2022 and the landlord responded on 21 October 2022. At 13 working days this was a slight delay. While this was not a significant delay, the landlord should have acknowledged and apologised for any inconvenience caused.
In its response the landlord explained that it had been unable to contact the right staff members to progress the resident’s concerns but said it would continue to monitor. By its own admission it had not completed a full investigation of the issues as required under its policy and the Code.
The landlord can extend the deadline for its response with agreement from the resident in circumstances where it needs additional time to complete its investigation. The Code states this should not exceed a further 10 working days. It was unreasonable of the landlord to provide its response without having fully investigated the resident’s concerns, and without providing a further deadline for a full response. The landlord simply noted it would update the resident in “due course”.
The landlord also explained that, after its investigation and “at the point works are complete”, if the resident remained dissatisfied, she could escalate the complaint. Due to the lack of progress, the resident escalated the complaint on 18 May 2023 but the landlord responded with a further stage 1 response on 28 June 2023.
It is not clear why the landlord did not progress the complaint through its complaints process and respond at stage 2. Its policy states that residents should escalate complaints within 10 working days of receipt of the stage 1 response. However, it was clear from its initial response that this timeframe did not apply, pending its investigation and progression of the issue.
Most significantly, the complaint response did not address the issue of the resident’s complaint, which was the adequacy of the insulation. The landlord’s failure to properly investigate the resident’s concerns despite opportunities to do so within its 2 complaint responses was unreasonable. It caused the resident frustration, undermined her faith in it to act on her concerns, and delayed her bringing her complaint to this Service for adjudication.
The resident again escalated her complaint on 7 September 2023 but it was only following the intervention of this Service that the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 26 October 2023. It provided its response on 16 November 2023 as directed by the Ombudsman. This was 51 working days after the resident’s escalation request. This was more than double the 20-working days allowed under its policy and necessitated further time and effort on the resident’s part, who had to chase it for the response.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its poor complaint handling in its final response and offered the resident £300 compensation. This was in addition to the £50 is offered in its stage 1 response of June 2023. This is the highest award it can provide under its compensation policy and reflects “an extensive failure to follow the complaints policy or procedure, or to investigate a complaint properly, causing significant impact”.
The landlord also said it had provided feedback to improve the quality of stage 1 investigations to ensure residents feel it is acting upon their concerns in a meaningful way. In doing so the landlord was fair and provided appropriate remedy. For this reason, we have found reasonable redress for its complaint handling failings. The landlord should ensure it pays the resident the £350 compensation it offered for complaint handling failures if it has not already done so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the adequacy of the insulation in the home.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write letter of apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report and share a copy with this Service.
2. Pay the resident a total of £600 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the adequacy of the insulation. The landlord can deduct the £300 it offered during its handling of the complaint if it has already paid this. It should provide evidence to this Service that it has paid the compensation.
3. Review the findings of its heat loss survey with regards the wall and loft insulation. It must outline its plan to further assess and address issues with the insulation, as appropriate, and share this with the resident and this Service. It should provide timeframes for completion of any works identified.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. If it has not already done so, pay the resident the £350 compensation it previously offered for complaint handling failures. We have made a finding of reasonable redress based on the landlord paying this amount as it identified failings requiring remedy.
2. If it has not already done so, pay the resident the £300 compensation it offered in its complaint response of June 2023 for failings in its handling of other repairs.
3. Consider reimbursing the resident for items she purchased to warm her home following its assessment of the insulation. It should outline any rationale for its decision, considering its assessment and the findings in this report, and share this with the resident.
4. Review this Service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management and ensure it keeps full records of its communications and activities in relation to repairs and complaints.