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: checks to the condition of the property when let as part of a mutual exchange the resident’s reports of repairs concerns about asbestos the resident’s request to remove the back garden shed The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Reports of incorrectly sized communal bins. Reports of poor standard of cleanliness and smells in the bin room, chutes, and bins. Reports of pest control issues. The complaint. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It says it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The landlord told the resident that it would provide its stage 1 response by 17 October 2023. In line with its complaints process, it was due to respond by 6 October 2023. It then provided its response on 18 October 2023, 8 working days later than it should have. This was inappropriate and not in keeping with its policy. It is unclear why it told the resident it would provide its response later than it should have. The resident then escalated his complaint on the same day as the landlord’s stage 1 response. As such it should have provided its response on 22 November 2023. It acknowledged that it missed the resident’s original escalation request on 30 November 2023 and this was appropriate. It then escalated his complaint and responded on 21 December 2023. As such it delayed its response by 21 working days. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its complaint handling at stage 2. It however did not recognise the delay at stage 1. It offered the resident compensation of £100 for its complaint handling failings. While it did not directly acknowledge the delay in its stage 1 complaint handling. We consider that the amount of compensation offered is sufficient redress for the failings at both stages of its complaints process. Based on this, we find that there was reasonable redress.
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s: Handling of repairs to a faulty programmer/thermostat. Complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s: Response to the resident’s concerns that an engineer entered the property without her permission. Related complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to: The resident’s reports about the front door. The resident’s reports about increased heating costs due to the door issues. The resident’s reports about subsidence. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of internal repairs in the property.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Reports of damp and mould, and damage caused to the resident’s possessions. Repairs to the paving slabs. Replacement of the front door and back door which caused a leak. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of recurring leaks into her property and the damage caused.