City of Doncaster Council (202308597)

Decision
Case ID	202308597
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	City of Doncaster Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	31 March 2026

 

Background

1. The property owner (freeholder) has used an arms length management organisation (ALMO) to provide its housing services since 2005. The resident moved to the property in December 2021.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns of who her landlord was.
   2. Associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:

1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of who her landlord was.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

 

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of who her landlord was

4. The landlord provided an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint

5. The landlord responded to the resident, largely, in line with its policy. Where there was a minor shortcoming there was no evidence of any additional detriment to the resident.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 May 2023	The resident raised her complaint. In summary she said she was unhappy with the condition of her property following a leak. She also said she should not have to deal with the arms length management organisation (ALMO).
24 May 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. In summary it: Said the issue with the leak had been addressed in a previous complaint response and would not be investigated or responded to again. Provided 2 points of contact should the resident need to contact it and said they would coordinate any responses from relevant teams. Said that any other correspondence would not be responded to and filed. Explained it was an arms length management organisation (ALMO) and had the responsibility of managing the property on the property owner’s behalf.
7 May 2024	On behalf of the resident, we requested that her complaint was escalated to stage 2 and that its response was issued by 4 June 2024.
20 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. In summary it: Reiterated its stage 1 explanation of its role. Confirmed that it was not the owner of the property but an ALMO with delegated authority to deliver housing services on behalf of the property owner. Said it had attended the property on 11 and 12 July 2023 to go through a leaflet which provided further explanation of this. Said as she was not present it had left the leaflet, along with contact details of the housing officer, should she have wanted to ask any more questions. But its records showed that she had not made contact. Enclosed a copy of the leaflet and invited the resident to call should she have any further questions.
Referral to the Ombudsman	When the resident came to us, she said she wanted a response directly from her landlord.

 

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 concerns of who her landlord was
Finding	No maladministration

What we did not investigate

6. We are not free to investigate all complaints referred to us. What we can and cannot consider is set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). For us to investigate the complaint it must relate to the landlord’s actions or omissions which have affected the resident in respect of her application for, or occupation of, property. We may not consider complaints, which, in our opinion, are about matters which relate to a landlord’s processes and decisions concerning governance structure.
7. In her complaint the resident has said she wants the property owner to take on the landlord duties currently carried out by the ALMO. This element of the resident’s complaint does not concern a specific housing issue that directly affects their application for or occupation of a property. It instead relates to broader concerns about the property owner’s decision to delegate some of its functions to an ALMO. As such we have not investigated this element of the complaint. We have however investigated how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.

What we did investigate

8. We have found that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns. It used its complaint responses to provide a comprehensive explanation of its structure and the reasons why the resident should use it, rather than the property owner directly, to address any concerns.
9. In addition to this, it produced a leaflet with additional information, attended in person to provide an explanation, and, because the resident was unavailable, provided contact details should she have any further questions.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

10. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was published in April 2022.
11. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with the timescales of the Code.
12. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said the resident had 20 working days to escalate her complaint. Therefore, it was positive that the landlord accepted her escalation beyond this.
13. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 31 working days after our escalation request.
14. The Code expects a response to be issued in 20 working days, or 30 working days in agreement with the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord agreed an extension with the resident and this was a shortcoming. However, there is no evidence that this delay caused detriment to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

15. There were no issues identified with the landlord’s record keeping throughout this investigation.

Communication

16. The landlord’s communication with the resident was positive. When it identified that the resident required additional explanation of its structure, its decision to provide a leaflet in person demonstrated its willingness to adapt its communication and provide a positive service for the resident.