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 provision of sandbags, reimbursement for damaged goods, and flooring repairs after a sewage flood in the resident's property. The resident’s reports of a person urinating in the communal areas of her block. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the installation of CCTV on the estate.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Repairs to the pipework in the kitchen to resolve the resident’s reports of a foul odour and water safety concerns. The associated complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: A roof leak, damp and mould, and internal repairs. The resident’s reports of damage caused to her possessions. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s: Complaint handling. Knowledge and information management.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Concerns about a new lock in the front door of the property. Request for a fence to be installed in the front garden. Reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property. Associated complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked downpipe which was causing water ingress into his property.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Damp, mould and associated work at the property. Repair appointments relating to a chimney cowl and bath panel. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Repairs in the property including asbestos, damp, and mould. Communication. The Ombudsman has investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s transfer application and banding. Overcrowding in the resident’s property. Damp and mould in the resident’s property. The resident’s request for a temporary move. The complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made about the standard of service, actions or lack of actions, affecting a resident. It operates a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint and 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint at stage 2. It says where possible, it must send responses when the answer to the complaint is known, not when it has completed the outstanding actions needed to address the issue. The landlord’s compensation policy says compensation may be appropriate if there is a delay in responding to a complaint without proper communication or agreement of an extension with the resident in line with its complaints policy. It says compensation may also be due if there is a delay escalating the complaint to stage 2, it will award £20 per week. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that there were failings in its approach around handling the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged that it had failed to provide the resident with its stage 2 response within agreed timescales. To put things right it awarded the resident compensation of £90 in line with its compensation policy. Whilst appropriate that it acknowledged that there was a failing in its approach, there were further issues it did not recognise in its handling of the complaint. Following the stage 1 response on 19 January 2024, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. He also raised concerns that it included false information around the appointment on 2 January 2024. The landlord then did not escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its process until he wrote to it again on 7 February 2024. This means that it failed to recognise the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction on 19 January 2024 as an escalation of his complaint as he remained dissatisfied. This led to a 14 working day delay in acknowledging the complaint. Its actions were not in line with its policy. The landlord also did not address all of the resident’s concerns. In the stage 1 complaint, the resident raised concerns around the landlord following its policies and procedures. He also raised concerns around its consideration of vulnerabilities and other matters. The landlord did not respond to these issues in either of its responses. It also did not respond at stage 2 to the resident’s comment around it providing incorrect information around the appointment on 2 January 2024. This was unreasonable. Based on this, we find that there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy, we order that it pay the resident added compensation of £100 to put things right.