London Borough of Lambeth (202441786)
The complaint is about: The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.
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...
London Borough of Lambeth (202500713)
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to address leaks, asbestos and damp and mould in the property. We have investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202303693)
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Issues with his building insurance company, including related repairs to the interior of his home . Reports of issues with his windows. Reports of a blocked drain. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202338185)
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation following a leak. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.
Northumberland County Council (202448418)
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Adaptations to the resident’s property. The resident’s complaint.
Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202331741)
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects at her property, in particular repairs to the staircase.
Origin Housing Limited (202332299)
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. We have also looked at the landlord’s complaint handling.
Peabody Trust (202448851)
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s: Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB). Complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy states: first time reports of noise or ASB will not be logged as a formal complaint it will log and acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20-working days, both from the acknowledgement date if at any stage additional time is needed, it will explain this to the resident and will not exceed a further 10-working days Our complaint handling code (the Code) states landlords should: recognise when a resident expresses dissatisfaction and must give them the choice to make complaint acknowledge, define, and log stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and within 20-working days of a stage 2 complaint escalation request decide whether an extension to these timescales is needed and inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10-working days for stage 1 complaints (20 working days for stage 2 complaints) without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports on 4 January 2025. The landlord said it was not logging the complaint as there had been no service failure. It said a complaint would manage the handling of the case but in this instance it could help her through its ASB process. The resident had clearly stated she was unhappy with the handling of the ASB, therefore it should have logged a complaint as requested by the resident. The landlord’s response was not appropriate and not in line with the Code. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 January 2025 to advise she was referring her complaint to us. The landlord logged and acknowledged the complaint on 15 January 2025 and advised it would respond within the next 20-working days. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the timescales in the landlord’s policy or the Code for a stage 1 complaint response. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 21 January 2025, however the resident escalated her complaint on 23 January 2025. The landlord did not acknowledge it until 13 March 2025, and provided its final complaint response on 21 March 2025, 41 days after the request was made. The landlord’s responses at both stages of the process were delayed. This was not appropriate as they were not in line with policy or the Code. The landlord’s response at both stages of the complaint process focused on the lack of engagement from the resident, and how this had impacted its ability to investigate the ASB reported. It said it had acted accordingly but did not provide any further detail to support this. As the resident said she felt ignored and the landlord had not acted on her reports, it would have been helpful to include what actions and investigations it had done and what it could not do without her cooperation. This may have helped reassure her she was not being ignored and helped set her expectations. The landlord confirmed it did not provide soundproofing and confirmed its contact with flat A and the support offered to him. Considering data protection, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise what it did, but not to provide any further information. It referred to the additional issues raised by the resident and provided its position on each. It apologised to the resident for her feeling it had not supported her and confirmed the wellbeing team would contact her to discuss if further support could be offered. The landlord offered to meet the resident in a location of her choosing so it could move forward with the case. This was reasonable as it showed it wanted to help and support the resident and allow it to follow its policy. The landlord acknowledged its stage 1 complaint response did not cover all the points raised and the distress and inconvenienced caused. It offered £25 for the inadequate response, and £25 for the distress and inconvenience. The landlord did not however acknowledge the delays in the complaint responses at either stage of the complaint. The compensation offered was therefore not appropriate. As such a finding of service failure is appropriate. In line with our remedies guidance, an order has been made to pay the resident and additional £50. This is for a failure of minimal short duration where the landlord had made an offer of compensation that is not proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation.
Southern Housing (202404075)
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs in the property. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Southwark Council (202347068)
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated damage. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.