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 resident’s reports of: a leak and subsequent damp and mould in his bedroom. a lack of cleaning and rats in the communal areas. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s subject access request (SAR). Damp and mould in the resident’s property. Asbestos in the ceiling and electrical issues. Rodent infestation. The complaint. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged there were failings in its complaint handling. It recognised there was a delay at stage 1 and offered the resident compensation of £50. While this goes some way to put things right, there were additional failings in the landlord’s approach that it did not recognise. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 9 April 2024 as the landlord had not responded to the complaint after a month. It said internally that it had missed this escalation request email. She then asked to escalate again on 10 June 2024, 2 days before it provided its stage 1 response. We understand that the landlord missed the original communication and acknowledge that mistakes can happen. However, landlords should have effective systems in place for receiving, logging, and acting on all complaints and correspondence promptly. As such missing the escalation request on 9 April 2024 was inappropriate. The landlord could have used this as an opportunity to explain the delay to the resident and request an extension to the stage 1 response as necessary. The response however remained outstanding, which lead to the resident having to ask again on 10 June 2024. The landlord then provided its stage 2 response on 1 July 2024. This was 15 days after the resident’s second request for escalation, and in line with its complaints policy. The landlord also failed to address the entirety of the resident’s complaint. She told it about concerns with her windows, internal doors, and lack of fire doors. We would expect the landlord to explain how it planned to deal with the issues to the resident. For example, if it was dealing with them as a service request, or if it would address them as a formal complaint. We have seen evidence that it is addressing the issue and has spoken with the resident about her concerns. The failure to provide a definite explanation of its approach however around the issue was unreasonable and further demonstrates its communication issues. In summary, there were communication failings with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It also failed to address the entirety of the complaint by not explaining how it would deal with her concerns around the windows, doors, and lack of fire doors. Based on this we find that there was service failure. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer compensation if it did not follow its complaints policy or procedure, or if it did not manage the complaint effectively through regular communication and proactive management or investigation. It will consider the length of time it had taken to put things right. It would award £50 to £100 for failing to follow the complaints policy or procedure, with low level impact. The landlord’s current compensation offer of £50 falls within the above category. However, as there were additional failings identified with the landlord’s complaint handing, we do not believe the failing had a low level impact. This is because, its failure to communicate around the delays led to the resident trying to escalate the complaint. We order that the landlord pay the resident added compensation.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for compensation for damage to personal belongings and for cleaning costs.
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of subsidence. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
The complaint is about the: Landlord’s handling of the intended removal the resident’s vehicle. Landlord’s use of an alleged illegal contractor and the legality of its actions. Legality of the contractor’s actions in removing, storing, and charging for storage of vehicles. Landlord’s complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communal heating charges.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: bathroom, cloakroom and kitchen repairs. external door repairs. radiator repairs. roof repairs. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord's: complaint handling. record keeping.