We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Decisions

We publish decisions as part of our commitment to being open and transparent.

Decision reports do not include residents’ names, but we name landlords. They date from December 2020, and we publish them 3 months after the final decision date.

In some cases, we will not publish a decision if it is not in the resident’s or landlord’s interest. Or if we will compromise the resident’s anonymity. You can read more in our guidance on decisions.

Loading...

London Borough of Hackney (202325848)

The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of: A leak from the kitchen ceiling. Overcrowding. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

London Borough of Lewisham (202411470)

The complaint is about the landlord’s maintenance of the communal areas including: Drainage issues and pipes leaking sewage. Damp, mould and algae in communal areas including on the carpet. Trip hazards and crumbling stairs. Repairs to communal lighting. Repairs to guttering. Block cleaning and internal decoration. Pest control. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Newark and Sherwood District Council (202346200)

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s request to have a driveway installed at his property. The resident’s complaint about the conduct of a member of the landlord's staff.

Notting Hill Genesis (202315662)

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to: The resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould in the property. The resident’s concerns regarding her rent arrears. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the issues on 22 August 2024 and it should have treated it as a complaint. It apologised for not doing so, which was reasonable. The landlord’s complaint responses were provided outside of its service level agreements. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge this in the responses and offer compensation. The landlord offered £50 for the overall delays. It acknowledged that while there were delays at stage 2, it did inform the resident of the need for an extension and provided the new date it would aim to respond by. This was also reasonable. In its stage 2 response the landlord appropriately outlined how some of the issues raised in the residents complaint fell outside of the scope of its investigation. It said this was because they were addressed as part of a previous stage 1 response in which she accepted £500 compensation. It said she did not escalate that complaint within 20 working days, which was in line with its policy. Overall, the landlord showed how it had aimed to manage the resident’s expectations by reasonably informing her of the stage 2 extension and outlining the scope of its investigation. These actions were in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. Where it failed to meet its service level agreements, it offered a proportionate amount of compensation to recognise the impact caused to the resident. As such, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.