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

Peabody Trust (202323656)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323656

Peabody Trust

26 March 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of leaks into the property.
  2. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident and her husband are shared ownership leaseholders of the property. They purchased the lease in 2008. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the top floor of a residential block. The landlord is the freeholder of the block and responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of it under the terms of the lease. The resident is responsible for internal repairs to the property.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 10 May 2022. She said that:
    1. The roof of the block had been leaking since 2008.
    2. She had repeatedly asked for the landlord to repair the roof, but it had not done so.
    3. The leak had caused damage to her property which needed replastering and redecorating.
    4. It would be difficult to sell the property in its current state and with the history of leaks.
    5. She wanted the landlord to compensate her and commit to buying the property when she decided to move.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 June 2022 acknowledging her complaint. It told her that, in keeping with its complaints policy, it would only investigate events in the 6 months leading up to her complaint. It also advised that, as a leaseholder, she was responsible for repairs to the inside of her property, and it would not include this as part of her complaint.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 July 2022. It said that it:
    1. Had raised a roofing repair on 18 March 2022. Its contractor had completed this on 19 April 2022. This was in keeping with its repair timescales.
    2. Could find no other outstanding repairs for the roof, or evidence of the resident contacting it to report issues in 2022.
    3. Could only deal with the repairs element of her complaint. It provided her with contact details for its sales and leasehold teams to discuss her request for it to buy the property back.
    4. Was awarding her £25 compensation for failing to respond to her complaint within its published timescales.
  5. The resident wrote to the landlord asking to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 11 July 2022. She said that the roof was still leaking and causing damage to the walls and ceilings in her property. She asked the landlord to fix the roof and repair the damage in her property. She again requested compensation for the distress caused and for the landlord to agree to buy the flat back when she wished to move out.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 13 November 2022. It said that it:
    1. Had used its discretion to look at events dating back to June 2019, when the resident most recently started reporting a leak.
    2. Had identified poor record keeping and communication in its handling of the leak between June 2019 and January 2020.
    3. Had arranged multiple repairs to the roof between June 2020 and April 2022. There had been delays and failings in its handling of these, for which it apologised.
    4. Had most recently sent a contractor to complete further roof repairs in October 2022.The resident had since reported that the leak was still ongoing, so it had recalled the contractor and arranged for a surveyor to review the roof.
    5. Would carry out remedial repairs to the interior of the resident’s property, as a gesture of goodwill, after it had resolved the leak.
    6. Had failed to appropriately log a complaint when the resident first asked on 22 December 2021. It had also delayed in escalating her complaint to stage 2.
    7. Had awarded her a total of £1100 compensation. This was composed of £800 for its handling of the leaks and £300 for its handling of her complaint. It said that, if the works were delayed beyond December 2022, it would consider further compensation.

Events since the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

  1. The resident referred her complaint to us on 10 October 2023. She said the landlord had still not resolved the leak from the roof.
  2. The landlord’s records indicate that a contractor completed extensive works to the roof on 22 December 2023. The landlord post inspected these on 12 January 2024 and found them satisfactory.
  3. On 25 October 2024, the resident told us a new leak had appeared from the roof.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. When acknowledging her complaint, the landlord told the resident that it would only investigate matters occurring in the preceding 6 months. This was in keeping with its complaints policy and our complaint handling code (the Code) at the time. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord reasonably used its discretion to look back further, to June 2019. This investigation will also consider that timeframe. Whilst the resident has said leaks have been ongoing since 2008, it would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to be able to conduct an effective investigation into such historical issues.
  2. In her complaint, the resident described the leaks as having affected her and her husband’s physical and mental health. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord explained that these were matters which it could not consider within its complaints process. This was in keeping with its complaints policy which lists claims that it has “caused negative health effects” as an exclusion. We are also unable to consider such matters, which are best suited to a personal injury or insurance claim. However, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced.

Leaks

  1. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that the resident reported a leak to it in June 2019. The resident included a timeline of events as part of her complaint which supported this. The landlord said that it raised a repair in October 2019, which it cancelled shortly afterwards as the resident was away for several weeks and could not give access to the property. The landlord has not provided any explanation for the 4 month delay in it raising a repair. Nor has it evidenced that it took steps to follow up the cancelled repair once the resident returned to the property.
  2. There is no evidence the landlord took any further action until October 2020, when it raised a new repair. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that its record keeping and communication with the resident between June 2019 and January 2020 had been poor. It also explained that delays in it addressing the leak had been partly due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic with restrictions in place from 26 March 2020.These had a significant effect on landlords’ ability to deliver repair services.
  3. The landlord said that the repair it raised in October 2020 was attended multiple times by its contractor, which carried out repairs to various parts of the roof. At the end of the works, the contractor reported that “if there continues to be problems with this block we would recommend to renew the roof coverings with a different roof system.”. Despite the resident reporting a further leak in May 2021, there is no evidence that the landlord considered following this recommendation. Instead, it raised a further repair in June 2021 which it said its contractor completed on 12 July 2021.
  4. The landlord said in its stage 1 response it had carried out further repairs to the roof on 19 April 2022, after the resident reported issues in March. It advised that this repair was completed within its published timescales. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will complete ‘programmed repairs’, such as roofing works with scaffolding, within 60 calendar days. It met this timescale.
  5. Within her complaint of 10 May 2022, the resident clearly said that the leak was still ongoing. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge this in its stage 1 complaint response stating that “in regards to the roof leak, I can confirm that this has been carried out”. Had the landlord spoken with the resident as part of its complaint investigation it would have found that this was not the case.
  6. When escalating her complaint on 11 July 2022, the resident again told the landlord that the leak was still ongoing. Despite this, it took until 13 September 2022 for it to log a further repair for the roof. This was an unreasonable delay. The landlord’s contractor completed this repair on 18 October 2022 – again within its policy’s timescale. However, on 3 November 2022 the resident reported that water was still leaking into her property after heavy rainfall.
  7. We appreciate that leaks within large buildings such as blocks of flats can be difficult to trace and repair. This is particularly the case with roof leaks, which are only apparent following rainfall. It appears in this instance the landlord and its contractors identified and repaired numerous issues with the roof over the relevant period. Whilst it is unfortunate these did not resolve the leaks into the resident’s property, this does not automatically represent failings on the landlord’s part.
  8. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord told the resident that it had recalled the contractor that completed works in October 2022. It said it would also arrange for a surveyor to assess the roof “holistically”. These were reasonable next steps to try and resolve the leak.
  9. The landlord also said that it had “carried out responsive repairs to the roof when reported” but that there had been “delays and failings” within this. It offered the resident £800 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience she had experienced since June 2019. It also committed to repairing any damage to the interior of her property as a goodwill gesture once it had resolved the leak. It is our view that this offer represented reasonable redress for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over such a lengthy period.
  10. However, the landlord’s records indicate that its contractor did not complete final repairs to the roof until 22 December 2023. This was over a year after its stage 2 complaint response. It is also unclear whether the landlord completed the repairs to the resident’s property as it had agreed.
  11. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it would “be able to consider an additional offer of compensation for any further shortcomings for example if the works are delayed past December [2022]”. The landlord has not provided evidence that it did this, despite the lengthy delay in completing the roof works. Due to this, we make a finding of maladministration and order a further £600 in compensation.

Complaint handling

  1. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that the resident had previously made a complaint on 22 December 2021. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to appropriately log this. It said it had instead dealt with it as a repair request. We have not been provided with any evidence relating to this. However, the landlord showed good practice in identifying this failure and apologising to the resident for it.
  2. The resident says that she hand delivered a complaint to the landlord’s offices on 10 May 2022. Despite this, the landlord failed to log the complaint, and open a case on its systems, until 20 May 2022. Our complaint handling code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days of receiving it. The landlord has not provided any explanation for its failure to do so.
  3. The Code requires landlords to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of logging a complaint. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 4 July 2023. This was 37 working days after it had logged the resident’s complaint. The landlord apologised for this delay in its stage 1 response and offered £25 compensation. This was in keeping with its compensation policy which allows it to offer up to £50 for minor failures including “a failure to follow the complaints policy or procedure with low level impact.”
  4. As part of her complaint, the resident asked the landlord to commit to buying the property back from her and her husband when they decided to move. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that it could “only deal with responsive repairs as part of this stage 1 complaint”. It signposted her to contact its leasehold and sales teams separately to discuss her request.
  5. The Code says that “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.” The landlord stating that it could only respond to responsive repair issues was not in keeping with this. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to seek input from its leasehold and sales teams as part of its complaints investigation and provide its position within its response.
  6. It is concerning that the landlord repeated this stance in its stage 2 response. It maintained that “my response was reviewing the stage one remit which is responsive repairs. What you are asking for would be dealt with by a different team and is potentially a legal matter”. A landlord’s complaint response represents the landlord as an organisation and not any individual department or work stream. The remit of a complaint response is determined by the complaint, not the landlord’s organisational setup.
  7. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 1 July 2022. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it logged or acknowledged this request. The resident emailed the landlord on 12 September 2022 chasing a response to her stage 2 complaint.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 13 November 2022. This was 89 working days after the resident first asked to escalate her complaint. The Code says that landlords should provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of a complaint being escalated. This significant delay was unreasonable.
  9. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay. It explained that this was due to staff sickness and the complexity of information it had to review. It said that it was in the process of expanding its complaints team to avoid such delays in future.
  10. The landlord offered the resident £300 compensation for its complaint handling. This exceeded the maximum amount of £250 that its compensation policy allows for such failures. It also falls within our remedies guidance’s recommended amount for instances of maladministration. Considering the length of delays in logging and responding to the resident’s complaint, we find this was a reasonable offer.
  11. However, the landlord failed to appropriately address the resident’s request for it to buy back the property within both of its complaint responses. This was not in keeping with the Code. Due to this we make a finding of service failure but do not view any further compensation as necessary.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of leaks into the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident £1,700 compensation composed of:
      1. The £800 offered in its stage 2 complaint response for its handling of the leaks, if not already paid.
      2. A further £600 for the maladministration in its handling of the leaks identified by this investigation.
      3. The £300 offered in its stage 2 complaint response for its complaint handling, if not already paid.
    2. Write to the resident:
      1. Apologising for the delays in it completing the roof repairs between December 2022 and December 2023.
      2. Apologising for failing to complete remedial repairs to her property as it had agreed.
      3. Providing its position on purchasing the property back from her when she wishes to sell.
    3. Arrange for a surveyor to visit the resident’s property to:
      1. Investigate any ongoing leaks from the roof.
      2. Agree the scope of works it will carry out to the interior of the resident’s property once any leaks are resolved.

The landlord should provide the resident with a copy of the surveyor’s report.

  1. The landlord should provide us with evidence of its compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord considers its contractor’s recommendation to entirely renew the roof coverings of the block with a different system. The landlord should consider whether this would provide better value for money and less distress and inconvenience for residents than repeated patch repairs.