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.
REPORT COMPLAINT 202334997 Fairhive Homes Limited 31 March 2025 Our approach The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. […]
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from her shower. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Defect repairs. The resident’s complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Roof repairs including the gutters, fascias and eaves. The complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a car parking space.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: reports of damp and mould reports of repairs to the shed roof complaint
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: A pest infestation. The resident’s complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of heating and hot water repairs in the resident’s property. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as the landlord: Did not respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 2 May 2023 until 17 May 2023 which was 1-working-day later than its 10-working-day complaint policy response timescale. Did not fully address the resident’s stage 1 complaint such as by explaining why it had been unable to repair the boiler repair for 17 days. Additionally it did not address the resident’s complaint about its level of communication. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’) in use at the time (April 2022). This says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. Did not say if it had upheld the stage 1 complaint in line with paragraph 5.8 of the Code which says that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made. Incorrectly addressed its stage 2 acknowledgement letter of 2 October 2023 to a different person. Did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 18 May 2023, until 6 October 2023. This was 80 working-days later than its 20-working-day complaint policy response timescale. Did not fully address the resident’s stage 2 complaint such as by addressing his reference to heating and hot water faults as hazards, and the landlord’s repair response timescales. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.16 of the Code which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. Did not say if it had upheld the stage 2 complaint in line with paragraph 5.16 of the Code which says that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made. The landlord reviewed its complaint handling in its final complaint response. It recognised that it should have handled its communication more effectively and sooner. It also recognised that its poor complaint handling was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident and it offered him £100 as compensation. The landlord’s compensation procedure says that it may offer compensation if it did not respond to or process a complaint within agreed response times and did not comply with the Code. It was therefore right for it to offer an award of compensation in recognition of the likely impact this had on the resident. However, its award was low and not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests a range of awards where, like here, we have found maladministration that the landlord has not proportionally addressed. We have ordered the landlord to provide a further compensation award of £75, totalling £175, below in keeping with our remedies guidance for the detriment that its complaint handling failings may have caused to the resident. The landlord has provided evidence to the Ombudsman that shows its compliance with our order for it to carry out a review of its practices, processes, and procedures. This followed our special investigation of the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme and included its complaints handling. We have however ordered it to write to the resident to apologise for its poor complaint handling. We have also recommended it to review the learning from this case and consider whether there are any other issues arising from it that require further action.
The complaint is about the landlord's handling of the resident’s: Concerns about its caretaking and ground maintenance services. Complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and concerns about staff conduct. Associated complaint.