Peabody Trust (202321123)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321123

Peabody Trust

14 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

1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of works to address damp and mould and the resident’s temporary move to alternative accommodation.
   2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.
2. We also considered the landlord’s handling of the related complaint.

Background

3. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy started in April 2005.
4. The landlord told us it has no vulnerabilities recorded on its system. However, during the timeframe investigated the resident told the landlord she had health conditions including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
5. The resident and her husband were both in communication with the landlord regarding the complaints considered in this investigation. Hereinafter, complaints from the ‘resident’ may include communications from her husband.
6. The resident and her husband were temporarily moved from the property on 25 September 2022 due to damp issues that they had been experiencing since the beginning of the year. The landlord told them the works to the property would take around 2 weeks and the temporary accommodation had been booked until 23 October 2022.
7. As the damp works were not completed within the next month, the landlord extended the resident’s temporary accommodation for another month. The same happened every month for the next few months as the works were ongoing.
8. On 27 March 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint which stated:
   1. They were told the damp works including redecoration would take 2 weeks yet 6 months later they were still living in temporary accommodation.
   2. The surveyor managing the repairs showed “a complete lack of professionalism”.
   3. He did not respond to emails and used an “offensive and bullying tone” to the resident and lied about his previous visits to the property.
   4. The surveyor missed areas of damp in the flat. Damp levels were “off the scale” when the resident met him at the property in November 2022 for works to be “signed off”. This caused the resident to have an asthma attack.
   5. Customer care by the landlord had been poor apart from 1 member of staff who had been helpful.
   6. The landlord had not upheld the resident’s rights or met its obligations under the tenancy agreement.
9. On 5 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. In its response, the landlord:
   1. Acknowledged the resident had been living in temporary accommodation for at least 8 months since 25 September 2022 while repairs were ongoing.
   2. Said its surveying team had explained that it had been difficult to trace the source of the damp which subsequently was causing a delay in carrying out remedial works.
   3. Said that a different contractor was appointed on 4 April 2023 to source the damp and carry out remedial works.
   4. Acknowledged the resident’s complaint regarding the conduct of the previous surveyor. This matter was dealt with internally, and a new surveyor to manage and oversee the repairs had been appointed.
   5. Acknowledged the damp reading was still high on 2 June 2023, but said its surveyor would return on 5 June 2023 to complete an action plan moving forward.
   6. Acknowledged previous contactors were not careful with her belongings whilst trying to source the cause of the damp in her home.
   7. Apologised on behalf of the contractors for the lack of respect shown. The matter would be dealt with internally between its surveying team and the contractors.
   8. Acknowledged that there had been poor communication on its part.
   9. Acknowledged the situation had impacted the resident’s mental and physical health.
   10. Confirmed that the resident was entitled to compensation for complaint handling and time, trouble and inconvenience, but said it was reluctant to agree a set amount as the case was still ongoing.
   11. Stated that her complaint was open, and the outstanding actions would be monitored until 19 June 2023 when it would review the progress of her repair.
10. On 12 July 2023, the resident requested to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process due to:
    1. The “misinformation” “lies” and “the sexism and misogyny” that she experienced from the (previous) surveyor.
    2. The landlord’s “dreadful workmanship”.
    3. The stress that had affected them both physically and mentally.
    4. The landlord apologising but nothing changing.
    5. The poor communication from the landlord including between different teams.
    6. An unsatisfactory level of compensation offered.
11. The resident requested the landlord:
    1. Accept responsibility for the situation they were now in.
    2. Provide a personal apology from the (previous) surveyor.
    3. Pay more compensation. They could not make plans as they never knew where they would be living at the end of the month.
    4. Retrain staff.
12. In its final response dated 17 August 2023, the landlord:
    1. Explained the damp proofing works and redecoration works being undertaken.
    2. Said that although the resident’s decant was initially intended to be for a few weeks, additional time was required by the surveying team to address the unforeseen issues that arose during the process.
    3. Reiterated that its initial contractors found it difficult to source the cause of damp and new problems emerged that required careful consideration and attention.
    4. Confirmed that the project was now expected to be completed by 24 August 2023.
    5. Acknowledged that it understood that this delay has been frustrating, but it was taking action to ensure that the project was completed to the highest standard.
    6. Explained that its alternative accommodation policy set out its approach to moving residents, however it acknowledged this did not outline the expected duration for a temporary move. Implementation of more detailed procedure would benefit residents.
    7. Acknowledged that it had not provided her with timely updates on the progress of the repairs, nor had it been able to assure her of a speedy resolution.
    8. Said it had investigated her conduct complaint and reassigned the surveyor as soon as it was feasible to do so.
    9. Said service failings in the management of her repairs, the alternative accommodations process, and her complaint had been flagged to drive change within the landlord.
13. The landlord “sincerely” apologised for failing to meet deadlines and expectations. To put things right the landlord:
    1. Agreed to monitor all outstanding repairs in accordance with its complaints procedure to ensure there were no further delays in progressing repairs or keeping the resident up to date on the progress.
    2. Agree to keep her up to date on any changes to her your temporary accommodation.
    3. Pay her £1,750 in compensation made up of:
       1. £250 for complaint handling
       2. £1,500 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
14. The landlord offered the resident a further £750 in September 2023 to reimburse her for winter clothes that she had to buy as the works were not completed and her clothes were in storage.

Post the final response

15. On 20 February 2024 the landlord provided the resident its stage 2 ‘final compensation’ email in which it stated:
    1. The resident was due to vacate the temporary accommodation on 18 March 2024 to move back into the property.
    2. It had reviewed her request for reimbursement for damaged items and for the inconvenience she had faced following its stage 2 complaint response. It was offering £2,150 in compensation made up of:
       1. £300 for complaint handling.
       2. £1,500 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
       3. £250 discretionary contribution towards replacement fridge freezer.
       4. £100 discretionary contribution towards replacement venetian blinds.
16. On 14 June 2024, the landlord agreed to increased amounts offered to replace the resident’s fridge freezer and blinds to £729 and £700, respectively.
17. The resident and her husband moved back into the property on 6 August 2024.
18. On 24 November 2024 the resident told us she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the damp works and length of time they had to stay in temporary accommodation. She said her emails were deliberately ignored and works were not checked or done properly for example shelves were put back up without being secured to the wall properly, and doors within the flat did not close properly.
19. On 24 March 2025 the resident told us about ongoing damp issues she was experiencing which she said required a further temporary move.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

20. In her communications to the landlord, the resident said the situation and its handling of works to address damp had an adverse impact on her mental and physical health.
21. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate if there was a causal link between reports of health issues experienced by the resident and the actions of the landlord. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. As these claims are more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, this element will not be investigated. However, consideration has been given to whether the landlord appropriately considered the resident’s vulnerabilities while handling her reports and associated complaint.
22. It is clear from communications seen by this Service that the resident (or her husband) have made further reports and complaints since the date of the landlord’s final response including about ongoing damp issues, the quality of remedial works and damage to possessions. We are unable to consider the landlord’s handling of these matters until such time they have completed the complaints process, and the landlord has had a reasonable opportunity to respond. The resident has been made aware of this. Nonetheless, we will consider in this investigation if the landlord has provided repairs or actions promised during the complaints process investigated.

The landlord’s handling of works to address damp and mould and the resident’s temporary move to alternative accommodation.

23. The property is a basement flat. The resident’s complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of damp works and the length of time she and her husband had been living in temporary accommodation while the landlord completed the works.
24. The landlord initially told the resident in September 2022 that damp proof works would be completed within 2 weeks. This was to address the resident’s concerns raised about damp “in all rooms”. Damp and mould is a category 1 hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Therefore, the landlord had a duty to ensure the property is free of damp and mould. This is echoed in the landlord’s damp and mould self-assessment which states it has in place a proactive, zero-tolerance approach to damp, mould and condensation (DM&C) and will investigate all reports of DM&C within residents’ homes and carry out any necessary remedial work which may be contributing to this issue.
25. The landlord’s decant policy says it will decant residents in ‘non-emergency’ cases when there are extensive works which cannot be carried out with the resident in the property. The work entailed damp proofing 3 rooms, patching the bathroom and redecoration. As such the landlord’s decision to decant the resident to enable the works was in accordance with its decant policy.
26. The landlord agreed to the resident’s choice of temporary apartment and booked this for 4 weeks from 25 September 2022 to 23 October 2023. Under its decant policy the landlord usually provides temporary accommodation however its policy also permits residents to locate their own temporary accommodation, where it is more cost effective than its own provision. In the resident’s case she needed accommodation that accepted a cat and a dog. It is evident that she was unhappy with the accommodation suggested by the landlord, so it agreed to the accommodation chosen by the resident. This shows the landlord’s approach in decanting the resident was flexible and it acted reasonably in this regard.
27. At the time of the resident’s formal complaint dated 27 March 2023, she had been in temporary accommodation for 6 months. When the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response in June 2023, it had been more than 8 months. The landlord’s internal communications show that works did not start until at least 2 weeks after the resident’s decant due to miscommunications with its damp contractor. This indicates poor oversight by the landlord of the repairs and decant processes.
28. A few weeks later the landlord told the resident that the works had been completed. However, when its surveyor met the resident at the property on 18 November 2022 to “sign off” the works, damp levels were still found to be very high. The resident has health conditions which she made the landlord of aware, as such this is indicative of the landlord failing to take this into account at this time.
29. It is clear that the landlord did not understand, in the first instance, the cause of the damp within the property and scale of the works needed to address this. As a result, it did not appropriately manage the resident’s expectations around the length she would need to stay in temporary accommodation. The resident at the outset had questioned the 2-week timescale given by the landlord. However, it confirmed this timescale. It is clear from the resident’s communications with the landlord during this time that the situation was causing considerable distress and inconvenience to her. She and her husband did not know where they would be from one month to the next.
30. In January 2023 its surveyor managing the repairs, told the resident the cause of the damp was more complex than first thought. In its stage 1 response, the landlord reiterated that it had been difficult to trace the source of the damp which had caused a delay in carrying out appropriate remedial works. The landlord apologised to the resident for the inconvenience caused by this issue and said that it had appointed a different surveyor and contractor (on 4 April 2023) to source the damp and carry out remedial works. It acknowledged that the most recent damp reading taken in the property on 2 June 2023 was still high. But it confirmed that its surveyor would be returning on 5 June 2023 to complete another reading and to propose a new action plan moving forward. By acknowledging failings and that further work may be needed to resolve the damp issues, the landlord acted appropriately.
31. The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s concern about her having to “bridge” the communication gap between teams involved in her case. In her complaint the resident said an instance of this was extending the temporary accommodation. She said the landlord’s neighbourhood team needed authorisation from its surveying team, and she often had to chase the landlord to get the accommodation extended. This is clear in the communications exchanges we have seen. In its stage 1 response, the landlord admitted communication on its part had been poor. It said however that it wanted to rebuild the resident’s trust in it by communicating with her more effectively and carrying out actions within the agreed timeframes. This was reasonable.
32. The landlord confirmed to the resident that she was entitled to compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, but said it was reluctant to agree an amount. It said this was because her case was still ongoing, and the amount offered could change depending on how the repair progressed. Given the length of the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation and the failings admitted by the landlord while handling the works, it would have been appropriate for it to offer compensation at this stage. Its failure to do so was unreasonable.
33. On 12 July 2023 the resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 as the issues remained unresolved. The damp works had still not been completed by the date of landlord’s stage 2 response on 17 August 2023. In this response the landlord reiterated it had had difficulties sourcing the cause of damp and said that unforeseen issues had emerged that required careful consideration and attention. It explained its surveying team required additional time to address the problems that had arisen but said the works to address the damp were now expected to be completed by 24 August 2023. The landlord apologised again to the resident for the “negative experience” and offered her £1,500 in compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its failings including poor communication.
34. While the compensation offered went some way to putting things right at the end of its complaints process, we also expect the landlord to demonstrate it provided any actions agreed during the complaints process. In its final response the landlord stated it would:
    1. monitor all outstanding repairs to ensure there were no further delays in progressing repairs or keeping her up to date on the progress.
    2. keep the resident up to date on any changes to her temporary accommodation.
35. The landlord also confirmed that once all the outstanding actions were completed and the resident had returned home, it would review the complaint and offer additional compensation if applicable.
36. The damp works were not completed by the date indicated in its final response and it took the landlord until around June 2024 to sign these off. Further it is evident that the resident only moved back into the property on 6 August 2024 once minor works and redecoration was completed. This indicates the resident had to remain in temporary accommodation for an additional 12 months after the date of its final response. She lived away from the property for 22 months in total. During this further period the resident was told on at least 2 occasions that works had resolved the damp yet following handovers in December 2023 and January 2024, ongoing damp was identified. This is further evidence of the landlord failing to consider her vulnerabilities while handling the remedial works to address damp. Due to ongoing signs of damp the landlord engaged a further damp specialist in around March 2024 who identified that additional damp proof works were required.
37. We recognise that tracing the source of damp can be complex and because in the resident’s case the landlord found that extensive works were required both internally and externally to address various areas of damp, it took significantly longer than originally anticipated. Redecoration works were also extensive.
38. However, promises made in its responses to monitor the repairs and to keep the resident updated on the progress were not always adhered to. Updates provided to the resident were not consistent and it is evident she had to contact the landlord to chase responses including in relation to extending temporary accommodation while the works were ongoing. This indicates an ongoing issue with communication from the landlord while managing the works involving different internal teams and contractors.
39. Because of the further lengthy delay in completing damp works after the final response and evidence of the landlord not effectively monitoring or providing sufficient updates as promised in its final response, redress offered during the complaints process did not resolve the complaint. This is indicative of maladministration by the landlord.
40. In February 2024 the landlord said it had reviewed the compensation offered in its final response however it did not increase its previous compensation offer (of £1,500) for stress, inconvenience, time and trouble Therefore, in the circumstances, it is reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £900 for the stress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused for failings while handling the damp works and decant. These amounts combined equate to a level recommended in our remedies guidance where a landlords’ failings have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident, as in this case.
41. We note the landlord subsequently agreed (in June 2024) to reimburse the resident £750 for winter clothes she bought because the damp proofing was taking longer than expected and her clothes were in storage. It also offered £300 for the cost of heating used by contractors at the property during the resident’s decant. The action was appropriate as it is evident the landlord had previously offered to cover these costs which it acknowledged in June 2024. These payments related to costs incurred by the resident and are separate from compensation for stress, inconvenience, time and trouble.

The landlord’s response to resident’s concerns about the conduct of staff and contractors

42. In her formal complaint the resident raised concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s surveyor who managed the repair works from September 2022 to April 2023 (the first surveyor). The allegations concerned a lack of professionalism and poor communication by this individual and “sexism”, “misogyny” and “bullying”.
43. The landlord’s code of conduct (code) states to support its aim to be a customer focussed organisation which delivers excellent service, staff must be professional, fair and courteous in all their dealings with residents. This also states that failure by staff to follow its code will be viewed as a disciplinary matter. We would expect the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct in line with its code although we recognise that the landlord would not be able to share any disciplinary information with the resident due to confidentiality reasons.
44. Nonetheless, to reassure the resident it had taken her allegations seriously, we would expect the landlord to show that it explained to the resident the outcome of her complaint and share some detail regarding its investigation. This is also in line with its complaint policy which says complaints about treatment by or attitude of a member of staff are included in its policy.
45. In its complaint responses the landlord told the resident its regional property services manager (RPSM) had investigated and dealt with the conduct complaint internally. It said following this it appointed a new surveyor to manage the works within her home going forward.
46. The landlord’s records show it appointed a new surveyor on 3 April 2023 to manage the works, as advised. Further, email communications exchanged between the resident and its RPSM show the landlord apologised to the resident for the “communication break down with the previous surveyor” assigned to her case and the service provided. Its RPSM also told the resident that it had arranged refresher customer service training because of her complaint. This indicates the landlord considered the resident’s concerns and took some action to resolve her conduct complaint about its surveyor.
47. However, we have not seen any records of the steps taken such as a staff interview to investigate the resident’s specific allegations. The landlord was unable to provide this evidence to us despite our further information request. There is also no evidence of the landlord explaining to the resident what steps it had taken to investigate her allegations or if it considered there had been a breach of its code.
48. Therefore, due to these issues we consider the landlord has not demonstrated it carried out a thorough or full investigation of all aspects of her conduct complaint. This was a failing by the landlord while handling the resident’s conduct complaint which may have made the resident feel as though it was not taking her concerns sufficiently seriously.
49. The resident also complained about damage caused to possessions by contractors while in her home. This was acknowledged by the landlord in its stage 1 response when it provided an apology on behalf of the contractor for the “lack of respect” shown to her belongings and her home. Further, following the resident’s specific reports of damage caused to her fridge freezer and blinds, in its February 2024 review of compensation, the landlord offered contributions of £250 and £100 towards replacement of these items in acknowledgement of damage caused.
50. Further, it is evident that the landlord subsequently agreed in June 2024 to reimburse the full cost of replacement fridge freezer and blinds (£729 and £700 respectively). On balance the apology and compensation provided shows the landlord acted in line with its compensation and remedies policy. This states where it is proven damage had been caused directly through the landlord (including its contractors’ actions), it will provide appropriate redress and take the necessary steps to put this right.
51. However, we are mindful there is no evidence of the landlord taking steps to avoid the same issue reoccurring. For example, it should have taken action to ensure contractors, and their employees were aware of its code and the standard of behaviour expected going forward. The landlord’s code applies to all staff including contractors therefore such action would have been reasonable. Its failure to take these steps indicates it did not appropriately learn lessons.
52. In summary, the landlord offered the resident some redress in relation to her conduct complaints. However, due to our additional failings identified around the landlord not completing a sufficiently thorough investigation and a lack of learning from the resident’s complaint, this is indicative of service failure by the landlord while handling the resident’s conduct complaint.

Complaint handling

53. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process under which it is required to acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and provide a response within a further 10 working days. At stage 2 the landlord must provide a response within 20 working days.
54. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 27 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged this 36 working days later on 19 May 2023. It apologised for the delay and asked the resident to extend the deadline to provide its response until 2 June 2023. The resident agreed. The landlord then provided its response 10 working days later on 5 June 2023. This is evidence of the landlord failing to keep to its timescales in its complaints process and those agreed with the resident.
55. At stage 2 the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 17 August 2023. This was 26 working days after the resident’s escalation request of 12 July 2023. This is further evidence of the landlord not adhering to the timescales in its complaints process
56. In its stage 2 final response the landlord acknowledged it had not followed its complaints process while handling the resident’s complaint. It also acknowledged additional failings including its responses lacking an appropriate “sense of urgency”. The landlord offered £250 in compensation. However, it increased its offer to £300 in its February 2023 review of compensation.
57. As the landlord acknowledged failings and offered the maximum amount of compensation for complaint handling under its compensation policy, we consider that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which satisfactorily puts right failings while handling the resident’s related complaint.

Determination

58. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of works to address damp and mould and the resident’s temporary move to alternative accommodation.
59. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.
60. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s related complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

61. The Ombudsman orders the landlord within 4 weeks:
    1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff shall provide an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident further compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble of £1,000 (£2,500 including the amount offered during the complaints process) made up of:
       1. £900 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for failings while handling works to address damp and mould and the resident’s temporary move to alternative accommodation.
       2. £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for failings in its response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff.
    3. Undertake a review of the failings identified in this investigation including:
       1. managing expectations and providing regular updates when delivery of works involve different teams and residents are in alternative accommodation.
       2. considering vulnerabilities while managing extensive works.
       3. if not already done so, consider if its decant policy needs to be clearer in regard to approximate timescales for temporary moves and around its process for extending temporary accommodation when required due to ongoing works to ensure the onus is not on the resident to arrange this.
    4. Provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

62. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord:
    1. Contact the resident regarding her vulnerabilities to clarify these and ensure they are correctly recorded on its system.
    2. Work with the resident to address any more recent reports of damp.