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.
The complaint is about the: Landlord’s handling of the intended removal the resident’s vehicle. Landlord’s use of an alleged illegal contractor and the legality of its actions. Legality of the contractor’s actions in removing, storing, and charging for storage of vehicles. Landlord’s complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communal heating charges.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: bathroom, cloakroom and kitchen repairs. external door repairs. radiator repairs. roof repairs. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord's: complaint handling. record keeping.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) reports. Complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: A leak and kitchen repairs in the resident’s property. Reimbursement of associated costs while in temporary accommodation. Forced entry into the resident’s property. Stolen money from the resident’s property. Initially rehousing the resident, and her subsequent request for further rehousing. The complaint. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It says it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement of the complaint and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The landlord appropriately acknowledged in its stage 2 response that there was a delay at both stages of its complaints process with its responses. To put things right, it offered the resident compensation of £50. Whilst this goes some way in acknowledging its failings, the landlord however did not acknowledge all of the failings within its handling of the complaint, and as such we do not consider its offer to be reasonable. The landlord did not address all of the resident’s concerns raised within her complaint. She raised concerns around the landlord’s handling of her ASB issues with her neighbour. It did not respond to this within either of its response, nor has it shown that it ever did, and this was inappropriate. We would expect the landlord to address all concerns raised by the resident within the complaint, or if it chose to deal with them separately make this known to the resident. The failure to do so was inappropriate and against the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The resident also raised concerns on 1 March 2024 about its handling of the reimbursement of additional costs she incurred while she was in temporary accommodation. As its response at stage 2 was already outstanding, and it related to the complaint at hand, it would have been reasonable for it to consider responding to the issue within the complaint. Or acknowledging that it would respond to the complaint separately. The resident confirmed to us on 23 July 2025 that she did not receive a response about this issue from the landlord. The landlord also explained to us on 30 July 2025 that it rejected the resident’s attempt at raising a complaint about this issue on 1 March 2024. This was because it duplicated this complaint. It then did not provide a response. This was a complaint handling failing as this was inappropriate.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s ongoing reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise. The resident’s concerns regarding closed circuit television (CCTV). The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: A blocked toilet which caused a back surge of wastewater, and damage to flooring. The resident’s reports of damp and mould. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.
The complaint is about: The landlord’s quality of work in the renewal of the kitchen and additional works. The landlord’s response to requests that it reimburse for damaged goods. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and its record keeping.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of birds living in the property’s walls and associated repairs. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.