Peabody Trust (202415038)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415038

Peabody Trust

30 April 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord under an agreement dated June 2004 for a 3 bedroom flat. She lives in the property with her 2 sisters.
In February 2024, the resident reported damp and mould to the landlord. On 13 March 2024 as part of a housing disrepair conditions claim, she instructed a private surveyor to inspect her flat, due to what she said were ongoing damp and mould problems in her home. The landlord also carried out its own inspection of the property on 21 March 2024.
On 14 June 2024, the resident raised a formal complaint about damp and mould that she said had been a problem in her home for 16 years. She also explained that she had received no acknowledgment from the landlord after sending it her own surveyors report of the problem in May 2024. In addition, she said that the works required went “beyond a mould wash treatment”, and attached the report again for the landlord to carry out its recommendations. To resolve the complaint she said she wanted the issue fixed, and compensation for damaged items.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 12 September 2024. It said:
1. 2 jobs were raised for mould removal. The first one was raised on 29 February 2024. Its contractors made multiple attempts to contact the resident on 4 March 2024 but had been unable to reach her,
2. an appointment was then confirmed with the resident for 21 March 2024, and its contractor attended on that date and identified what works were needed,
3. the contractor then tried to contact the resident on 10, 12, 15, 18 and 22 April 2024, but was unable to reach her. The job was then closed down as a result,
4. the second job was raised on 18 July 2024 for the same issue, and its contractor attended on 12 August 2024 and applied mould removal and fungicide treatment to the affected areas,
5. it had identified no failures in its response to her damp and mould concerns, but was awarding her £150 in compensation for delays in responding to her complaint.
The resident responded on the same day to escalate her complaint. She said:
1. damp and mould had been previously “dismissed” as condensation mould by the landlord. She also said she had complained about the condition of the roof previously, and been told by the landlord that a drone would be sent up to look at it
2. the damp and mould was caused by poor maintenance of the building. She had provided the landlord with an independent report that included recommended works, and the landlord had taken no action other than to carry out mould washes, which were not solving the problem
3. she had told the landlord numerous times that any contractor visits or appointments needed to be confirmed with her by email. Instead, she was getting calls from unknown numbers that did not leave messages, making it look like she was causing delays
The landlord issued its final response on 4 December 2024. It said:
1. the resident initially reported damp and mould concerns in February 2024. Repairs were raised and completed within 30 calendar days, in line with its repairs policy,
2. the resident had said that staff or contractors had attended and told her that a drone would be taking pictures of the roof, but it had no record of that in its repair history. It had therefore raised a referral to its surveying team and passed on the independent report provided by the resident,
3. a surveyor would complete an inspection of her home and the roof, and any identified works would be carried out,
4. it was upholding her complaint in full, as it should have made efforts to determine the root cause of the damp and mould,
5. it was awarding her increased compensation of £400 for time and trouble caused by its handling of her complaint.
The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. When she contacted us in December 2024 she said she wanted the damp and mould problem resolved, and increased compensation. The landlord also confirmed to us in April 2024 that it received no further communication from the resident about a housing conditions claim after her private survey was completed.

Events after the complaints procedure

The landlord’s records indicate that in December 2024, it tried to call the resident to arrange a surveyor appointment. The records also indicate it increased its compensation offer from £400 to £500.
On 27 January 2025, the landlord cancelled the appointment due to no contact with the resident.
On 17 February 2025, the landlord carried out a further inspection of the resident’s home and identified numerous works needed to fix damp and mould issues. A surveyor was then scheduled to carry out a follow up inspection on 24 March 2025 as agreed with the resident.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

In her contact with both the landlord and us, the resident advised that damp and mould had been an ongoing problem for 16 years. However, this report will not consider events from that time.
We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period addressed in the landlord’s response to the resident’s June 2024 complaint.
We also note that the resident has suggested that the issues in her home had negatively affected her health. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, we have considered any general distress and inconvenience that the resident may have experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy says:
1. it will investigate all reports of damp, mould and condensation within residents’ homes where it has a responsibility for repairs. It will make sure it carries out, and completes, any necessary repairs that would help tackle the issue,
2. it has a duty to protect its residents and properties. It will temporarily rehouse people in critical situations where there is a risk to their health and safety.
The landlord’s repairs policy says non urgent repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days. Programmed and specialist repairs will be completed within 60 calendar days.
The landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported damp and mould in or prior to 8 February 2024, and it raised a job to investigate it on the 8 February 2024. However, its records then show that the job was closed on 28 February 2024 because it had been unable to contact the resident. It has provided no evidence to show how it tried to contact the resident, or whether it had made her aware of the missed attempts, which would have been appropriate.
Its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint said that it raised a job for mould removal on 29 February 2024, and made numerous attempts to contact the resident on 4 March 2024 but had been unable to. No evidence has been provided to show that this was the case, and the information in the response contradicts the above information that is set out in its own records.
However, both the landlord and the resident have confirmed that an inspection did take place on 21 March 2024, 31 working days after the report on 8 February 2024. We think the landlord’s response was inappropriate, as it did not respond in adherence with its own repair policy timescales. It has also said that some delays were caused when it was unable to contact the resident, but has not evidenced this.
Additionally, the landlord stated in its final response that it had tried to contact the resident on 5 different dates in April 2024 but had been unable to do so. As a result, it closed a job for follow up works down due to no contact. Again, this is not reflected in its repair records, and no information has been provided to show how it tried to contact the resident or whether it made her aware of the missed attempts to contact her.
On 10 May 2024, the resident contacted the landlord for an update following its March 2024 visit. In the same communication, she asked it to schedule any further contractor visits in writing, and again provided a copy of the report she had paid for privately.
The landlord’s repair records then show that a job for damp and mould repairs was raised on 18 July 2024, with a mould removal and fungicide treatment not taking place until 13 August 2024, 67 working days after the resident contacted it in May 2024 for an update, and 131 working days since her report in February 2024. No explanation has been given for the delay. We think that the landlord’s response was unreasonable here, and not in adherence with its repairs policy.
In her stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 12 September 2024, the resident explained that the mould washes carried out by the landlord were not solving the problem. She reiterated that she had provided it with an independent report but no action had been taken by the landlord on the items detailed within it. She also stated again that any future appointments needed to be confirmed in writing.
The landlord responded with an update on 3 December 2024 to confirm it had noted her communication request, received her report, and asked its surveying team to complete a new inspection. In its final response to the resident, it recognised that it had not made efforts to establish the root cause of damp and mould. It also said that a full inspection would be completed and any follow up works would be carried out. This was not unreasonable given that the resident’s had originally reported the issue almost 12 months previously. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer comment on the survey provided by the resident, or showed that it considered it in its approach to the problem. Providing its own report in response, or commenting on the findings to the resident may have also helped mitigate her frustration at the landlord’s lack of engagement with the report.
In summary, there were a number of failings in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould problem:
1. it took 31 working days to inspect the mould issue after it was reported on 8 February 2024, exceeding its 28 day target for non urgent repairs. This meant that the resident and her family were living in a property that was known by the landlord to be affected by damp and mould for longer than necessary
2. it claimed contact with the resident was attempted on 4 March 2024, nearly a month after the issue was raised. The lack of timely engagement left the resident without information, support, or reassurance, increasing her distress and uncertainty during a period where she was concerned the condition of her home was deteriorating
3. it claimed 5 failed contact attempts in April 2024, but provided no evidence of these or how it had attempted to contact the resident. This resulted in the closure of follow up works and further delays, unfairly placing blame on the resident and stalling progress in resolving the issues
4. after the resident contacted it in May 2024 about damp and mould, repairs were not carried out until 13 August 2024, 67 working days later. This delay meant the resident was left with a damp property for an unreasonable length of time. There is also no evidence to show that it considered temporarily moving the resident while mould treatment works were carried out. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider this, in line with its damp and mould policy
5. it failed to act on the independent survey provided by the resident in May 2024, and only acknowledged it in December 2024. The resident had taken proactive steps to identify the problem at her own expense, and the landlord’s failure to act on it was unreasonable.
6. it carried out superficial mould washes and treatments without addressing the possible root causes, and admitted so in its final response. These temporary solutions meant the mould problem continued, prolonging the resident’s exposure and undermining her trust in its ability to resolve the problem
Based on the identified failings, the landlord was responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In its final response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged its failings in its handling of her damp and mould reports. It also offered her £400, later changed to £500, in compensation but this was for time and trouble related to delays in its handling of her complaint only. This was inappropriate, given the number of failings identified above.
The resident had also explained in her compliant submissions to the landlord that she was having to repeatedly clean the mould herself, and that she had asked it to contact her by email to arrange appointments so they would not be missed. The landlord does not appear to have considered these points and the resultant impact on the resident in its complaint responses.
An order has therefore been made for the landlord to pay the resident £500 in compensation for its failures in its handling of her damp and mould reports. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for service failures that have had a high impact on a resident and where it has taken an extended time to complete actions. It is also in line with our remedies guidance for failings that a landlord has failed to appropriately put right.
As of February 2025, damp and mould issues remained ongoing at the resident’s home, and a job for a surveyor to attend was closed down by the landlord in January 2025 as it had been unable to contact the resident by telephone. This is despite the resident making it clear to it that she wanted communications in writing.
On 22 April 2025, the landlord provided us with an update. It provided contact notes to show that a further inspection of the resident’s home was carried out on 17 February 2025 that identified numerous works required to fix the damp and mould problem. This included notes to say that walls at the property had no insulation.
A further inspection by the landlord’s surveyor was scheduled to take place on 24 March 2025 in agreement with the resident. Its contact notes show that its last communication with the surveyor was on 17 April 2025 when it chased them for an update.
A further order has therefore been made for the landlord to confirm the results of its surveyors visit, and provide the resident and us with a schedule of the works required to action a permanent fix for the damp and mould problem.
A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to pay the resident the £400 it awarded her for its complaint handling failures, if it has not already done so.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) states landlords must acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days of them being received, and then respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of acknowledgment. Landlords should acknowledge escalation requests at stage 2 within 5 working days, and provide a response 20 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.
The resident complained to the landlord on 14 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged it on 19 June 2024, and provided its stage 1 response on 12 September 2024 which was 62 working days later. The landlord’s response was outside the timescale set out in the Code. While the delay was not excessive, it would have left the resident waiting for a resolution to her complaint. This was not appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 1 response also failed to address all of the issues the resident had raised in her complaint, such as concerns about damage to her property. 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. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the resident’s complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint on 12 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged it on 29 November 2024, which was 57 working days later, and after we sent it a request for a response. This was not appropriate. It then provided its stage 2 response on 4 December 2024 which was 4 working days later, within the timescale set out in the Code.
In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the delays in handling the resident’s complaint, and awarded her £400 in compensation, which was reasonable and appropriate. However, it again failed to address the resident’s concerns about damage to her property, missing the opportunity to resolve the complaint fully.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. It failed to put matters right by addressing all the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity and taking steps to put things right.
We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It has been ordered to pay the resident £100 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures outlined above. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to put things right.
The landlord has also been ordered to engage with the resident about the reported damage to her property and provide her with a response.
A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to pay the resident the £400 it awarded her for its complaint handling failures, if it has not already done so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination:
1. pay compensation to the resident of £600, broken down as follows:
  1. £500 for distress and inconvenience caused to her as a result of its handling of reports of damp and mould
  2. £100 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her complaint
2. confirm the results of its surveyors visit, and provide the resident and us with a schedule of the works required to action a permanent fix for the damp and mould problem.
3. engage with the resident about the reported damage to her property and provide her with a response.
The landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with proof of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the £400 it awarded her for its complaint handling failures, if it has not already done so.