Peabody Trust (202337779)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337779

Peabody Trust

27 May 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Report of drainage repairs.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident has been a shared owner of the property since April 2021. The property was a new build, and the developer was responsible for any reported defects until the defect liability period ended on 3 December 2021. The landlord has confirmed that the resident’s husband has a physical health condition.
Prior to 26 October 2021 the resident reported a blocked toilet. The developer’s sub-contractor attended, resolved the blockage, and conducted a drain survey.
On 26 October 2021 the resident asked the landlord for an update on the survey. On 19 November 2021, having not received the survey report, the landlord asked the developer to reinspect the property. It is not known when the developer visited again.
On 26 November 2021 the resident told the landlord that the problem had not been resolved. On 23 December 2021 drainage engineers attended, unblocked the drains, and found that the pipes had dipped which was the cause of the problem.
Throughout January 2022 the resident asked the landlord for updates and a copy of the survey report. On 19 January 2022 the landlord confirmed that there was no report, only feedback from the developer’s sub-contractor who attended. The landlord referred the issue to its own sub-contractor and a drain survey was completed on 10 February 2022. The resident raised her concerns about the urgency of the matter due to her husband’s medical needs for which he needed the downstairs toilet. On 15 February 2022, she reported the toilet was blocked again. The resident also made a claim to the National House Building Council (NHBC).
The landlord continued to chase its sub-contractor for the survey report which was received around 22 March 2022. The report and findings have not been provided to us; however, subsequent communication with the resident suggested the issues was related to the incorrect fall of the underground waste pipe.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 12 April 2022. She was unhappy with the ongoing drainage issues that were affecting the toilet, and the delays in rectifying the problem. She also reiterated information about her husband’s disability and the need for the ground floor toilet.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 June 2022. In summary, the landlord said:
1. the issue was first raised out of hours to the developer in October 2021, following which, an operative confirmed there was standing water in the drain
2. despite several requests for the survey report, the developer did not provide it, so the landlord asked its own sub-contractor to conduct a drain survey
3. the survey in February 2022 confirmed that the blockages were likely to have been caused by the incorrect fall of the underground waste pipe
4. the sub-contractor recommended excavating and lifting the pipe to the correct drop
5. it had provided the developer with the sub-contractor’s findings and asked for a reinspection which was done in May 2022
6. the developer was in the process of arranging the work, and the landlord had asked for it to be completed by no later than 8 July 2022
7. it would review its procedures to ensure any failures in performance from contractors or staff were captured earlier so the appropriate escalations within the terms of the build contract could be made
8. it offered £650 compensation (£350 for time, trouble, and inconvenience, and £300 for the delay in resolving the defect)
The resident declined the offer. She highlighted the impact the delays had on her husband’s health. She asked for the complaint to be put on hold until the work was completed, and asked for the compensation offer to be reviewed at that time.
The complaint was put on hold until 3 October 2021, when the landlord sent a further stage 1 response. It said:
1. there had been a significant delay between 5 August 2022 and 26 September 2022 where no work had been completed as the developer had believed the matter was resolved
2. work had been arranged for 19 September 2022 at the request of the resident, but was delayed until 26 September 2022 due to the bank holiday
3. the developer would complete all remaining work on 12 October 2022
4. it had increased the compensation offer to £1,300 (£500 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience, £100 for complaint handling, £300 for the delays in resolving the defect, and £400 discretionary compensation for further delays and the distress and inconvenience caused)
5. its updated compensation offer considered where it could have been more proactive in chasing confirmation of the completed work, as well as the severe inconvenience of not having the downstairs toilet
6. accepting the offer did not mean it could not be reviewed if further delays were experienced
The resident escalated her complaint on 17 October 2022. She remained dissatisfied with:
1. the offer of compensation
2. the level of service received while trying to get the toilet fixed
3. the efforts she had to make to have the matter resolved and the impact it had on the household
4. the amount of time taken off work to allow access
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 18 November 2022. It said:
1. it was sorry for the inconvenience and disruption caused by not having access to the downstairs toilet while the developer dealt with the drain issue
2. it had considered if it should be responsible for the delays with the developer, and confirmed it was responsible for pursuing the issues on behalf of the resident
3. it could not do any repairs during the defect period, but this did not negate its responsibility as it must engage with the developer to ensure repairs are completed in a reasonable timeframe and to a good standard
4. it could only consider compensation if it failed to communicate with the responsible party and failed to provide the resident with updates, not for something that is outside of its control
5. it found that while most of its contact with the resident had been reasonable, there were 6 incidents where it took longer than 14 working days to provide a response
6. in future, it would ensure that managers would make contact within 14 working days and that arrangements are made for when someone is unavailable
7. it reiterated its offer £1,300 made at stage 1
The resident referred her complaint to us on 14 December 2023. She confirmed the repairs had been completed in October 2022, but she remained unhappy with the offer of compensation and wanted this increased to fully acknowledge the impact the delays in repairs had on the household.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to the impact the situation had on her husband’s health. Although we can consider the impact the situation had and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability for damage to health. This is a matter better suited to an insurance claim or court. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she has the option to seek legal advice.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s new homes customer case and defects management policy states:
1. it only covers defects in new build homes that are made apparent during the Defects Liability Period (DLP) and applies to all tenures
2. urgent defects which are small defects that need to be carried out urgently to prevent damage to the property will be completed within 5-working days
3. where it is unable to resolve defects within the listed timescales, it will communicate this to the resident and provide regular fortnightly updates until the matter is resolved
The landlord’s compensation policy includes a scale which covers compensation based on minor to severe failures. Its states:
1. minor disruption – a service failure has occurred with low impact and/or low effort to resolve (£1 to £200)
2. moderate disruption – a service failure has occurred with low impact/high effort, or high impact but low effort to resolve (£201 to £400)
3. extensive disruption – a service failure has occurred with high impact and high effort to resolve, and/or extended time to complete actions, and failure to communicate or follow procedure (£401 to £600)

Report of drainage repairs

Prior to 26 October 2021 the resident reported a blocked toilet to the developer. There is no evidence to confirm when the developer attended the property, nor is it evident when the landlord knew about these repairs. However, on 26 October 2021 the resident asked the landlord for an update on the issue. She said someone was going to organise a drain survey as it was believed there was an issue with the pipes. She asked the landlord to report this to the developer as she had been told it could not deal with it unless logged by the landlord. From this point onwards, the landlord was aware of the issue and its responsibility to ensure the resolution was reasonably monitored.
On 2 November 2021 the landlord asked the resident to confirm the problem and when it had been raised. Although the landlord was not responsible for the repairs, it is reasonable to expect it to liaise with the developer on behalf of the resident regarding any repairs reported. It was therefore reasonable of the landlord to confirm this information so it could obtain an update from the developer.
On 5 November 2021 the landlord confirmed that the developer’s sub-contractor had attended the blocked toilet as an out of hours call. The sub-contractor had advised that the blockage was resolved, and that a CCTV survey of the drainage had been completed. The landlord kept the resident informed that the survey may have been taken from outside her property. It also asked the resident to confirm if the matter had been resolved. It was reasonable for the landlord to make enquiries with the resident to determine if her position aligned with the developer’s. The resident confirmed that the survey had been completed the previous week and had shown a lot of standing water in the pipes. She asked the landlord to confirm the next steps.
Following a further chase from the resident on 9 November 2021, the landlord confirmed on 19 November 2021 that it had asked the developer to reinspect the property. While this was reasonable and demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to progressing the issue, it is not clear when the developer attended or what its findings were. And, while the resident and landlord asked the developer for a copy of the report, this was not received.
On 1 December 2021 the landlord told the resident it had sent an urgent request to the developer for an update on how it intended to resolve the drainage issues. The landlord confirmed it would respond to the resident by 8 December 2021; however, there is no evidence it did. While it was initially positive that it sought further information, its failure to follow up on its promised updates was unreasonable and a communication failure by the landlord.
On 22 December 2021 the resident informed the landlord that she had no central heating or hot water. She confirmed she had reported this to the developers and a contractor had called her. She said the contractor told her the drains had to be fixed first as the waste pipe and the pipe to the boiler were all connected. The heating and hot water was restored on 23 December 2021 and the landlord confirmed it was expecting feedback that day following the developer’s investigation into the matter. It committed to providing an update on receipt of the information. While initially reasonable, there is once again no evidence that it provided an update. This led to the resident spending more time chasing the landlord for updates. This was a further communication failure by the landlord.
On 13 January 2022 the landlord told the resident that it had asked the developer to confirm when it was to resolve the outstanding issues. By 19 January 2022 the developer had not responded to the landlord. The landlord told the resident it had engaged with its own sub-contractor to complete a drain survey which would be reviewed by its construction inspection team. The landlord recognised the resident’s frustration with the developer, the delays in progress, and acknowledged the problem was still outstanding. Its decision to engage a new sub-contractor was therefore reasonable and demonstrated a willingness to resolve the matter for the resident.
The landlord’s sub-contractor completed a drain survey on 10 February 2022. In addition, and as part of the end of defect period inspection, the developer attended the property on 11 February 2022 when the resident confirmed the developer had seen the toilet blocked and overflowing. Despite this, there is no evidence of any progress from the developer by this point.
Despite the resident highlighting her husband’s health concerns, there is no evidence at any point that the landlord considered any interim works to help support the resident and her husband. For example, installing a temporary toilet. This was unreasonable as the landlord did not demonstrate empathy or understanding of the impact on the household.
Although the landlord sent 3 separate chases, the survey report was not received until around 22 March 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord to chase its sub-contractor for the report, as it was responsible for monitoring the progress and keeping the resident updated. However, the number of chases required and the delay in receiving the report demonstrated ineffective communication with its sub-contractor. Highlighting the lack of progress, the resident raised a complaint on 12 April 2022.
On 14 April 2022 the landlord escalated the issue with the developer with a request for a response by the end of that week. The landlord confirmed it would provide an update to the resident “shortly;” however, by 27 April 2022, the resident again had to pursue the landlord for an update. This was unreasonable and a communication failure by the landlord.
On 28 April 2022 the landlord told the resident the developer was to conduct a final assessment and provide a resolution. The date of the assessment is not known; however, on 30 May 2022 and after 2 further chases from the resident, the landlord confirmed the developer would remove the ground floor toilet and lift the soil pipe so it could be repaired. The developer was to confirm availability from 20 June 2022, as requested by the resident. Although the developer agreed to work around the resident’s availability, there is no evidence the landlord committed to monitoring the progress and keeping the resident updated. Due to the issues already raised regarding a lack of progress and delays, this was unreasonable.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it confirmed that the issues had been ongoing since October 2021. It confirmed the actions taken to date and advised it had asked the developer to complete the work by 8 July 2022. As a result of the delay in resolving the defect and for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused, the landlord offered £650. This was proportionate and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy when considering the extensive disruption caused.
The developer confirmed it could start the work on 4 July 2022; however, by 12 August 2022, the work had not been completed. The landlord agreed it was “absolutely unacceptable” and confirmed it had escalated the matter to its own director level along with that of the developer. While this was reasonable, due to the time taken to resolve the matter, and the previous communication issues, the landlord ought to have considered this action earlier than it did to try to provide an earlier resolution. The resident confirmed the outstanding repairs were completed on 12 October 2022 and no further problems have been reported.
In the landlord’s second stage 1 complaint response on 3 October 2022, it confirmed the timeline for the repairs and highlighted the delays in the matter being resolved. Furthermore, it recognised it should have been more proactive in monitoring and chasing the completion of the repairs and considered the “severe inconvenience” caused by not having an operational toilet. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £1,200 which exceeded the amounts stipulated in its compensation policy. This offer was confirmed in the final complaint response.
In summary, the landlord acknowledged its own failures during the management the defects on behalf of the resident. While it confirmed it was not responsible for completing the repairs during the defect period, it acknowledged its failure in monitoring the progress and in its communication to the resident. It recognised the severe inconvenience caused throughout the time and compensated the resident appropriately for this.
In line with our remedies guidance, the landlord’s final compensation offer exceeded what we expect for a finding of maladministration where a failure had a significant impact on the resident. Furthermore, the landlord identified learning in terms of communication and monitoring contractor performance. The landlord demonstrated it had followed our Dispute Resolution Principles of being fair, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. As such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.

Associated complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint policy. It states it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5-working days of receipt and respond within 10-working days of the acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 3-workings days of receipt and responded to within 20-working days of the request. If additional time is needed at either stage of the process, this will be communicated to the resident.
Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords should:
1. acknowledge, define, and log stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt
2. issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and within 20-working days of a stage 2 complaint escalation request
3. decide whether an extension to these timescales is needed and inform the resident of the expected timescale for response
4. any extension must be no more than 10-working days for stage 1 complaints (20 working days for stage 2 complaints) without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident
5. a complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed
6. outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident
The landlord’s compensation policy includes a scale for complaint handling service failures. Its states:
1. minor – a failure to follow the complaints policy or procedure with low level impact (£1-£50)
2. major – a failure to follow the complaints policy or procedure, or to correctly investigate a complaint, resulting in inconvenience and effort to progress (£51-£150)
3. severe – an extensive failure to follow the complaints policy or procedure, or to investigate a complaint correctly, causing a significant impact on the complainant (£151-£250)
The resident submitted her complaint to the landlord on 12 April 2022. The landlord’s internal information refers to an acknowledgement on 19 April 2022; however, there is no copy of this. We are therefore unable to assess if the landlord complied with its complaint policy. There is, however, evidence of an acknowledgement on 7 June 2022, 37 working days after receipt. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with its policy or the Code.
The landlord provided its first stage 1 complaint on 17 June 2022, 45 working days from when it was submitted. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the policy or the Code. Furthermore, the landlord did not apologise for the time taken to acknowledge or respond to the complaint nor did it offer an apology or any form of redress. This was unreasonable.
The resident asked the landlord to put the complaint on hold until the repairs had been completed (due by 8 July 2022). This was a reasonable request to make; however, in line with the Code, it would have been helpful if the landlord explained to the resident that it could provide the response at that time but then continue to monitor the progress through to completion with a revised compensation offer when the work was completed. There is no evidence it discussed this with the resident at this time.
Although it is not clear what triggered the landlord to progress with the complaint, it provided its second stage 1 complaint on 3 October 2022, 4 months after the initial response. Although the agreement to put the complaint on hold is noted, the time taken to provide the follow up stage 1 complaint was unreasonable. The landlord did however acknowledge this in its follow up response and offered £100 compensation for the failure. This was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy for a ‘major’ failing.
The resident escalated her complaint on 17 October 2022 and the landlord acknowledged it the same day. It confirmed it would respond by 17 November 2022. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 18 November 2022. Although this was 1 day over the given response date, it is unlikely to have caused any serious detriment to the resident or have an impact on the outcome.
The landlord confirmed the £100 compensation offer for the poor complaint handling. It referred to the Code and explained it did not have to delay the complaint response and should have committed to completing any outstanding actions considered part of the resolution at the time. As above, it would have been helpful if it had made this clear to the resident earlier in the process. The delay in the landlord responding to the complaint delayed her exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that she could bring the matter to us for an independent investigation.
Taking the above into consideration, we find reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint. This is because the landlord acknowledged its failings, demonstrated that it had learnt from the case, and offered appropriate compensation which was in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of drainage repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £1300 that was offered in the final complaint response. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of repairs to a defective drain and complaint handling is made on the basis this compensation is paid.