Sandbourne Housing Association (202416101)
The complaint is about the landlord’s: Handling of the resident’s transfer application. Handling of a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP).
Decisions
Our decisions are published as part of our commitment to being open and transparent. The decisions are anonymised so residents’ names are not used, but landlords are named. The decisions date from December 2020, and are published 3 months after the final decision date. In some cases, we may decide not to publish a decision if it is not in the resident’s or landlord’s interest or the resident’s anonymity may be compromised. You can read more in our guidance on decisions.
Loading...
Sovereign Network Homes (202420358)
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
Wandle Housing Association Limited (202451140)
This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s reports of subsidence, including a sloping floor. Guttering repairs. The resident’s report of a damaged sink.
Westward Housing Group Limited (202406785)
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Reports of structural movement of the property. Reports of damp and mould and the associated damage to his belongings.
Golding Homes Limited (202333825)
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Pest issues in the resident’s property. 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 landlord’s compensation procedure says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receiving the complaint. The resident complained to her MP on 6 April 2023. The MP forwarded the complaint to the landlord on the same day. The landlord then did not acknowledge the complaint until 27 April 2023. This is 9 working days later than it should have done, and this was not in keeping with its policy. The landlord then provided its stage 1 response on 9 May 2023. As it should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint by 14 April 2023, its response was therefore due by 28 April 2023. This means there was a delay of 5 working days in providing its stage 1 response. It has not shown that it kept the resident informed of the delay, or that it requested an extension in line with its policy. Its actions were inappropriate and not in keeping with its policy. The resident then told the landlord on 13 June 2023 that she had heard nothing from its pest control contractor or in relation to another repair. The pest control team then attended 2 days later. We appreciate that the resident explained that she continued to raise concerns with the landlord between June 2023 and September 2023. However, we have seen no evidence of this. The landlord however did not appropriately recognise within a reasonable time that the resident’s email on 6 September 2023 was an expression of dissatisfaction, and it should have escalated her complaint. The landlord did not recognise this until October 2023 where it acknowledged her escalation on 11 October 2023, over a month later and this was unreasonable. It should have acknowledged her escalation by 13 September 2023. As such the stage 2 response was due by 11 October 2023, the day it acknowledged her escalation. The landlord then further delayed in providing its stage 2 response. However, it acknowledged this and asked the resident for extensions to provide the response. It provided its stage 2 response on 9 November 2023. This was 29 days later than it should have. While it did request extensions to provide its response late, this was significantly after the response was already due. Its actions were inappropriate, led to a delay in the complaint handling process and not in keeping with its policies. Further in the resident’s escalation request, she explained that it had not responded to 10 previous emails between June 2023 and September 2023. We would have expected the landlord to provide some level of response to this. It did not respond and has not shown that it considered this. This shows poor investigation into the resident’s concerns, a lack of customer focus, and poor complaint handling. In summary, the landlord delayed across its responses and did not show that it investigated or responded to all of the concerns raised by the resident within her complaint. Based on this we find that there was maladministration. The landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failings in either of its responses. While it offered the resident compensation across both, it is unclear whether this also related to its complaint handling failings. To put things right in line with our remedies guidance, we order that the landlord pay the resident added compensation.
Hyde Housing Association Limited (202430074)
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Reports of damp and mould as well as concerns about energy efficiency and cavity wall insulation. Complaint.
Leicester City Council (202407619)
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s: Request for a key fob. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB). Reports of suspected lodgers living at neighbouring properties. Associated complaint.
London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202434694)
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
London Borough of Barnet (202410299)
This complaint is about the landlord’s response to repairs to the balcony door.
London Borough of Hackney (202404637)
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Repairs to the resident’s window. 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 day. The landlord’s compensation policy says compensation may be appropriate for any significant breach of its complaints policy, but specifically if there is a delay in responding to a complaint at stage 1 or stage 2 without proper communication or agreement of an extension with the resident in line with its complaints policy. The landlord appropriately provided its stage 1 response within the agreed timescales in its policy. Following the resident’s escalation on 18 March 2024, it advised it would provide its response within 20 working days. It then requested 2 extensions to provide its response on 17 April 2024 and 15 May 2024. It was appropriate that it kept the resident informed about the delays in its response. The landlord also appropriately acknowledged the delay in its complaint response. It apologised and offered the resident compensation around the delay in its response. Its actions were in line with its complaints policy and its falls within a service failure finding. These are findings we would make where there was a minor failure by a landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge the failing or fully put it right. Based on the landlord’s appropriate actions around the delay and looking to put things right, we find that there was reasonable redress.