From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Guildford Borough Council (202422292)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422292

Guildford Borough Council

22 September 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 the resident’s:
    1. Tenancy while she was away from the property.
    2. Son’s vulnerabilities while she was away from the property.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority. She lives in a house and has vulnerabilities relating to her mental health.
  2. A support worker has raised the complaint on the resident’s behalf. For ease of reference, this report will use ‘the resident’ to refer to both.
  3. On 7 September 2022, the landlord served a notice to quit at the resident’s property, requiring her tenancy to end by 10 October 2022. The landlord said this was because the resident had told it a few months earlier that she would not return home following a domestic violence incident. The landlord said it therefore had accepted a homelessness application and provided the resident with temporary accommodation.
  4. The resident’s son was living at the property at the time. The landlord said it considered him an unauthorised occupier once it had served the notice to quit, and the resident’s tenancy had ended.
  5. In May 2023, the landlord began a possession claim for the property against the resident’s son. In July 2023, the resident applied to be joined to those proceedings as a second defendant alongside her son. In her defence, she said she had not given up possession of the property and that the notice to quit was not a valid method of ending her tenancy.
  6. In October 2023, the landlord withdrew the possession claim. It said it accepted the resident’s defence, and therefore that she had always remained a secure tenant of the property.
  7. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 7 May 2024. She said that she and her son had struggled with their mental health for several years and that the landlord had taken this into account when handling her eviction and the action to remove her son from the property. She also said the landlord was unfairly charging her £8,000 for rent arrears during the period it considered her tenancy to have ended. On 28 May 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It said it had considered the mental health of both the resident and her son, and that based on the resident’s defence in court, she was liable for the rent.
  8. On 7 June 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She disagreed with the points made in the stage 1 response and said she was unhappy about the delay in receiving it. She also said the landlord had not made reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 when dealing with matters related to her son. On 2 August 2024, the landlord issued a response to the resident. It said the resident’s case was complex and, as she disagreed with its earlier response, a more effective way forward would be to arrange a meeting to discuss the complaint further.
  9. In September 2024, the resident referred her complaint to our service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her concerns.

Jurisdiction

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s tenancy while she was away from the property

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to our service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s tenancy while she was away from the property, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the matters raised were the subject of possession proceedings in the county court.
  3. Paragraph 42.e. of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
  4. In this case, the landlord brought possession proceedings relating to the resident’s tenancy in May 2023. The resident later joined those proceedings and, in her defence, argued that she had not given up possession of her property and that the notice to quit was not a valid way of ending her tenancy.
  5. Although the landlord later withdrew its claim and the court did not issue a judgement on the merits, the complaint brought to us was considered within the court process.
  6. While it is not clear from the available evidence whether the resident was fully advised of the different options, this is not something the Ombudsman can investigate. If the resident wishes to challenge the validity or outcome of the possession proceedings, she can seek legal advice on how to raise this through the courts. The Ombudsman cannot re-examine these issues.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s son’s vulnerabilities while she was away from the property

  1. The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s son’s vulnerabilities while she was away from the property is also outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In reaching this decision, we have considered that the resident may feel the landlord should have taken her son’s vulnerabilities into account alongside her own when decisions were made about the tenancy.
  3. However, paragraph 34.a. of the Scheme says that a complaint must affect the complainant in respect of their occupation of property. The concerns raised here relate to how the landlord treated the resident’s adult son, rather than the resident’s own occupation. They therefore do not fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  4. In addition, part of the landlord’s actions in relation to the resident’s son, including the application for a partial closure order, was considered and determined by the court. The Ombudsman cannot re-examine a decision made by the court, so these matters also fall outside our jurisdiction.
  5. As the landlord is also a local authority, the resident’s concerns about how it safeguarded or supported her son may be better suited to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), as they relate to the council’s wider social care and safeguarding responsibilities rather than its role as a housing provider.
  6. This is in line with paragraph 42 (j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. The resident can contact the LGSCO if she wishes to pursue this matter further.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

  1. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident 15 working days after receiving the complaint. Its complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide a full response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint within this timeframe. Instead, the resident had to contact the landlord for an update before the response was issued. This shows the landlord did not follow its own complaint handling policy.
  2. By not meeting its timescales, the landlord demonstrated poor service and caused unnecessary inconvenience to the resident. That said, it was positive that the response acknowledged and apologised for the delay, which showed recognition of the inconvenience caused.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response 41 working days after receiving the resident’s escalation. Its complaints policy says stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. This did not happen.
  4. While the landlord said in its response that the case was complex, this did not remove its responsibility under the policy to contact the resident in advance and explain clearly the reason for the delay. By failing to do so, the landlord again did not follow its complaint handling policy. This demonstrated poor service and left the resident without a clear expectation of when she would receive a final response, which likely added to her frustration.
  5. Given the landlord’s delay to respond to the resident’s complaint at both stages of the complaints process, we have determined service failure in its complaint handling. This represents a lower level of maladministration, as the failings were limited in scope and caused inconvenience but did not prevent the resident from progressing her concerns.
  6. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, available on our website, sets out our approach to resolving disputes. In this case, the landlord must apologise to the resident for the delays in responding at both stages of the complaints process. The apology should be made by a senior member of staff at director level or above. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available to view on our website.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.e. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s tenancy while she was away from the property is outside of our jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 34.a. and 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s son’s vulnerabilities while she was away from the property is outside of our jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must must apologise to the resident for the delays in responding at both stages of the complaints process. The apology should be made by a senior member of staff at director level or above. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available to view on our website.
  2. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with the above order to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.