Peabody Trust — case 202508512

Decision Case ID 202508512 Decision type Investigation Landlord Peabody Trust Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 30 January 2026 Background The resident has lived in the property with her 4 children since June 2019. One of the children is under 5 years old and the resident’s teenage daughter has a number of mental health vulnerabilities. The resident has experienced a number of repairs issues and overcrowding which has led to this complaint. What the complaint is about The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Her reports of multiple repairs issues, including windows being in poor working order; a broken window; loss of heating; interruptions to the water supply; a pest infestation; and damp and mould.

Her transfer application. Her formal complaints. What we have considered and what we have not We have considered the landlord’s actions up to 21 August 2025 (when it issued its stage 2 final response). Around December 2025 the resident made further reports to the landlord (with the support of her local MP) about the heating system, the window locks, the kitchen flooring, the living room doors, pipes in the upstairs sink, and further concerns about damp and mould. These are not matters that were previously addressed in the formal complaints and the landlord has not yet had opportunity to respond through its internal complaints process.

We therefore will not look at these issues within this investigation. The resident has also disputed the outcome of the landlord’s medical assessment in relation to her transfer application. She has expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord did not give her medical priority. The landlord has explained that the medical assessment was conducted by an independent professional and should she wish to submit new evidence she could do so. This was not part of the original formal complaint and the landlord has not addressed it within its formal complaint responses.

While we understand the resident wishes us to consider this issue, we are not able to do so. Should she wish to raise this in another formal complaint she is within her rights to do so. Our decision (determination) We have found that: There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple repairs issues including windows being in poor working order; a broken window; loss of heating; interruptions to the water supply; a pest infestation; and damp and mould.

There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of her transfer application. The landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s formal complaints. Summary of reasons The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple repairs issues The landlord responded in a timely manner to the issues raised and took reasonable action to try to resolve matters. it acted reasonably in its communication with the resident. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application The landlord facilitated the resident’s transfer application in a reasonable manner and acted in line with its policies and procedures.

The landlord’s complaint handling The landlord apologised for the delay in acknowledging the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2, and for the delay in issuing a complaint response. It offered £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, which was in line with its compensation guidance and our remedies guidance. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right.

We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Recommendations Our recommendations The landlord should pay £100 to the resident in recognition of its delays in complaint handling per its previous offer, if it has not already done so. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 1 June 2025 The resident raised a complaint about the following issues: Her window had collapsed out of the frame. She had no running water.

Water leaks from ceilings were causing damp and mould. A pest infestation (in particular rodents and silverfish). Leaking toilets. Overcrowding – all 4 of her children were sleeping in one room. Security issues – the front door did not have an additional lock and windows were not secured with locks (it was unclear which windows). She explained that her children were experiencing mental health symptoms due to these issues. She also contacted our Service around the same time. 2 June 2025 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint.

13 June 2025 The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response stating that: The window was repaired on 27 May 2025 on an emergency basis, the same day the resident raised the issue. A contractor did further repairs on 29 May 2025. The resident had reported loss of hot water on two occasions in early April and early May. On the first occasion, it said the hot water was running fine. On the second occasion, it found the hot water was flowing slowly and it fixed an airlock. However, when the landlord’s area manager and contractor returned later for a joint follow-up visit, the resident declined to give access.

The resident had not previously logged any reports of a pest infestation or specific references to mould via the landlord’s portal. It had also not had reports of security concerns before. It included a link where the resident could access its website to report these issues. It encouraged the resident to register with its own rehousing platform or the local authority’s housing register. It advised the resident to provide medical evidence to support her transfer application and sent her the relevant forms.

23 June 2025 The resident requested escalation of her complaint. In addition to the previously raised concerns, she also said: Contractors attended her property without prior appointments. Her transfer application was denied by the landlord on the basis that she did not have medical priority, which she disagreed with. She wanted emergency rehousing and compensation. 24 June 2025 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. 7 July 2025 The resident asked to raise a second formal complaint about some issues that overlapped with those previously raised: There were water system issues including slow drainage.

Her kitchen and bathroom were in poor condition with mould growth. 14 July 2025 The resident expressed further dissatisfaction regarding an unrelated issue. As a result, she stated the landlord and its staff were not permitted to enter her property under any circumstances and asked to be urgently relocated. 23 July 2025 The resident asked to raise a third formal complaint about some further issues that overlapped with what was previously raised: Drainage was blocked. Maggots were ‘covering floors and walls’.

There was a persistent ‘foul’ smell coming from the bathroom. 29 July 2025 The resident asked to raise a fourth formal complaint about two contractors who attended her home for a damp and mould inspection. She stated this was without her prior knowledge. 7 August 2025 The landlord again acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. 21 August 2025 The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. It stated that: While the resident had raised some requests for repairs, on each occasion, when its contractors attended they had either found no evidence of the reported issues or the resident had denied them access.

Its management staff had tried to support the resident in coordinating appointments, ensuring access and referring her to welfare support, but she had not engaged. It reminded the resident she was required to allow reasonable access to the landlord so it could carry out inspections and repairs as per the tenancy agreement. It acknowledged a delay in escalating her complaint to stage 2 and issuing a stage 2 complaint response. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, it offered £200 in compensation.

4 September 2025 The resident referred this case to our Service. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple repairs issues Finding No maladministration Records showed the resident reported multiple recurring and overlapping repair issues, often around the same time.

The landlord was responsive on each occasion. It assigned a senior member of staff (the neighbourhood manager) to act as a specific point of contact for the resident. On some occasions (for example 15 May 2025 and 10 July 2025) it arranged for its neighbourhood manager to attend the property jointly with contractors to try to identify what work was needed, but it said it encountered difficulty in gaining the resident’s permission to access the property. The evidence shows the landlord investigated the resident’s reports of interruptions to water supply; drainage issues; boiler issues; pest infestation and other issues raised.

Where the issue was confirmed by contractors, the landlord took action to either fix it within the timeframes as stipulated in its repairs policies, or raise the appropriate repairs. It acted promptly when the resident reported a broken window and arranged for a contractor to attend on an emergency basis. The resident reported a lack of locks/restrictors on the windows in early June 2025. The landlord addressed this only briefly in its complaint responses, saying that the resident had not reported it previously and should she need to, she could raise this concern via its repairs portal.

Given that there were vulnerable children in the house, it would have been better practice for the landlord to organise an inspection of the windows by a qualified person and include that in the complaint responses. However the landlord carried out a joint visit on 10 July 2025 and found the windows in good working order at the time. Overall we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple repairs. Overall, it responded to her repair reports in a timely manner and acted in line with its policies and procedures.

Complaint The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application Finding No maladministration The resident’s initial complaint at stage 1 said her house was overcrowded with all 4 children sleeping in one bedroom. One of the children had been born after she moved in. The landlord explained the resident had not reported this issue before her complaint and therefore it did not find a failing. However, it provided appropriate advice to her about her rehousing options – she could register with the landlord’s own rehousing platform or with the local authority.

It also explained to her that she could submit medical evidence for her and her children to help assess whether she could have medical priority, and it explained how to do that. We consider this was an appropriate response to the resident’s reports of overcrowding. Due to the reasons set out above, we do not find there was maladministration in how the landlord has facilitated the resident’s transfer application. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Reasonable redress The landlord acknowledged it delayed in escalating the resident’s complaint at stage 2 and issuing her with a complaint response.

We find the delay was about 1 month as the resident requested escalation on 24 June 2025 and the stage 2 response was issued on 21 August 2025. The landlord apologised for this and offered compensation totalling £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience it caused to the resident. We find the impact was also partly mitigated by the landlord’s communication with the resident in the interim, providing her with updates on repairs. Although the landlord had not addressed all of the issues the resident raised within its formal complaint responses, we find the landlord has been in regular correspondence with both her and the MP advocating on her behalf.

It had provided detailed responses addressing most of the points she raised. Taking into account the volume of the resident’s correspondence and the large number of complaint points that were raised, we consider the landlord acted reasonably in responding to her complaints. The landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was in line with its compensation guidance. It was also in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests for failings causing impact of relatively short duration, a compensation of about £100 is appropriate.

On the basis that the landlord pays this in full to the resident, we consider the landlord made an offer of redress that was proportionate to the failings it identified and “put things right” for the resident in the circumstances.