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.

Date

(date from format: mm/dd/yyyy)
(date to format: mm/dd/yyyy)

Landlord Name

Landlord type

Complaint Category

Outcome

Tenure

Orders

Loading...

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202427991)

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Repairs and improvements to the property, including: heating and boiler repairs. toilet repairs. bathroom repairs. kitchen repairs and renewal. window renewal. attendance of repair appointments. communication. Concerns about staff and contractors including: conduct whilst working in the property. taking photographs in the property.  Reports of mice in the property. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Peabody Trust (202225069)

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the: Resident’s request for a permanent transfer to alternative accommodation. Associated complaints.

Peabody Trust (202319678)

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: A gas check appointment. The complaint. The landlord operated a 2 stage complaints process. It said it would log a new complaint within 5 working days. It would respond at stage 1 within 10 working days unless it needed an extension. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of a request. The landlord acknowledged that there were “failings” with its complaint handling. It acknowledged that when it recorded the resident’s complaint it did not fully address his concerns. It offered the resident compensation of £75. As such in this instance, our role is to consider whether there were any other failings in the landlord’s complaint handling it failed to recognise and decide whether its offer of redress was reasonable. While the landlord acknowledged “failings” in its approach, it only addressed 1 of these in its complaint response. As such it is unclear what other failings it found in its approach. The resident raised his complaint on 1 December 2021, and the landlord responded on 13 January 2022. Between this time, he asked to escalate his complaint. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 December 2021 and apologised for the delay, explained the reason for this, and said it would resolve the issue by 7 January 2022. It also told him it could not escalate his complaint. This means that its response was 4 days later than promised. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 18 January 2022. Its response was due on 15 February 2022, and it responded on 11 February 2022 which was reasonable. While there was a delay at stage 1, a typo in the landlord’s response, and a failure to address all the resident’s concerns within its response. There is no evidence of significant detriment to the resident around these issues. The landlord also appropriately acknowledged its failing in not considering all the resident’s concerns. Based on this, we find that there was reasonable redress.

Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202422734)

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), and the associated repairs. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Southwark Council (202415988)

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord's response to his request for compensation for the loss of communal heating and hot water.

St Albans City and District Council (202418681)

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repair issues in the property. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the investigation.