Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202331942)
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) and parking management concerns, and her associated complaints.
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...
Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202445281)
The complaint is about the landlord’s: response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. complaint handling.
Sanctuary Housing Association (202322712)
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Lift repairs. Reports of anti-social behaviour.
Sanctuary Housing Association (202419673)
This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s reports of damp and mould. An Occupational Therapist (OT) referral to assess the resident’s needs. The resident’s housing transfer. The associated complaint.
Sanctuary Housing Association (202450881)
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Repairs to the resident’s storage heaters. Electrical costs due to the storage heaters not functioning. The complaint. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The policy also says that it will close a complaint where there is no response from a resident after 10 working days of a request. It further states that it will not consider a complaint where legal proceedings have started, such as where a court or tribunal reviews the concern. The resident raised his complaint with the landlord on 17 April 2023. As the landlord believed he did not provide the evidence it requested from him, it closed the complaint on 4 May 2023 in line with its policy. It however did not tell the resident that it was closing the complaint and this was unreasonable. It acknowledged that it should have communicated with the resident that it was closing its file in an email in October 2023 and apologised for this and this was reasonable. It however failed to provide the resident with a response at stage 1 to his complaint. The resident then escalated his complaint on 18 October 2023. The landlord looked to identify whether he wanted a response at stage 1 or 2 and the resident confirmed he wanted a stage 2 response. The landlord identified it would provide its response late and appropriately informed the resident and asked for an extension. It then provided its first stage 2 response on 30 November 2023. It apologised for the delay in its response on 8 March 2024 and provided its final response on 14 March 2024 and offered the resident compensation for its failings. The landlord’s compensation policy further says in relation to poor complaint handling that it will consider redress only where there was evidence that it did not handle a complaint in accordance with its complaints policy and procedures. Its offers would reflect the effort made by the resident to resolve the issue and the impact it had on the resident. The policy also says it would make payments of up to £150 in recognition of time, trouble and the inconvenience of a service failure using a scale with payments ranging from £0 to £250. It says it will pay between £150 and £250 where there were significant difficulties in raising a complaint, delayed responses, and poor quality correspondence. The policy says it will offset payments for time, trouble, and inconvenience and poor complaints handling against any arrears or outstanding debt, depending on the status of the resident’s account. Due to the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, the complaint handling process took over 10 months for the landlord to complete and this was unreasonable. The landlord also said it could not respond to the resident’s complaint in its last response as the matter was subject to legal proceedings. However, both the resident and landlord have confirmed that no legal proceedings were actually issued about the resident’s concerns. The only legal correspondence related to a pre-action letter, and a further settlement offer. As no formal court proceedings were issued, the landlord should have provided the resident with the necessary response as it promised to do in its other response on 30 November 2023. The failure to do so was inappropriate and shows a lack of proper consideration and understanding of its policy. It however appropriately identified several failings in its approach and compensated the resident. Its actions were in line with its policy around compensating the resident for poor and delayed responses. When looking at the landlord’s compensation offer, the total exceeds the amount that it its policy says it will award for complaint handling failings. It also appropriately recognised that it should have referred the resident to us at a much earlier point in the complaint handling process and compensated for this also. We note that the resident has raised concerns about the level of compensation awarded around the landlord’s complaint handling, however its offer also falls within the maladministration findings within our remedies guidance. This shows that the landlord acknowledged that its failings adversely affected the resident. This would have been the finding we would have made had it not recognised its failings. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will ‘usually offset any payments for time, trouble, inconvenience, and poor complaints handling against any arrears or outstanding debt, depending on the status of the resident’s account’. The resident suggests that the landlord’s decision to apply the compensation awarded to his rent account was unfair, as he had a court ordered payment plan in place. However, in our opinion its decision to do so was reasonable. This is because the landlord’s compensation policy makes provision for this to happen. We note that it could have however used its discretion to consider whether the policy should apply in the resident’s case. It could have considered the payment arrangement already in place. This would have been a discretionary decision for the landlord and, as its policy allows it to pay its compensation awards towards rent arrears, there was no service failure. Based on this we find that there was reasonable redress.
Sanctuary Housing Association (202451429)
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs affecting: Guttering, drains, and roof tiling. Heating. The kitchen. The shower. The Ombudsman has investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
Southern Housing (202439760)
The complaint is about: The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of discriminatory practices. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when let. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Southern Housing (202442436)
This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about: Pests. Communal ceiling repairs.
Sovereign Network Group (202335064)
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of replacement kitchen flooring. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Stonewater Limited (202317567)
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about: Fencing. Bias. Anti-social behaviour (ASB). Compensation for rent issues. Enquiry regarding a neighbour. We have also looked at how the landlord handled the complaint about its own complaint process as part of this investigation.