Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

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.

Date

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

Landlord Name

Landlord type

Complaint Category

Outcome

Tenure

Orders

Loading...

Notting Hill Genesis (202315662)

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to: The resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould in the property. The resident’s concerns regarding her rent arrears. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the issues on 22 August 2024 and it should have treated it as a complaint. It apologised for not doing so, which was reasonable. The landlord’s complaint responses were provided outside of its service level agreements. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge this in the responses and offer compensation. The landlord offered £50 for the overall delays. It acknowledged that while there were delays at stage 2, it did inform the resident of the need for an extension and provided the new date it would aim to respond by. This was also reasonable. In its stage 2 response the landlord appropriately outlined how some of the issues raised in the residents complaint fell outside of the scope of its investigation. It said this was because they were addressed as part of a previous stage 1 response in which she accepted £500 compensation. It said she did not escalate that complaint within 20 working days, which was in line with its policy. Overall, the landlord showed how it had aimed to manage the resident’s expectations by reasonably informing her of the stage 2 extension and outlining the scope of its investigation. These actions were in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. Where it failed to meet its service level agreements, it offered a proportionate amount of compensation to recognise the impact caused to the resident. As such, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Plymouth Community Homes Limited (202446159)

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s reports of damp, mould and poor ventilation. The resident’s reports of an ant infestation. The resident’s concerns about patio repairs. 

Sheffield City Council (202420198)

The complaint is about the landlord’s decision to recharge the resident for the cost of a lock change, to clean and clear his property, and the required method of payment.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202445258)

The complaint is about the landlord’s: Response to the resident’s dissatisfaction regarding service charge costs. Handling of the resident’s subject access request (SAR). Handling of the resident’s reports its staff recorded a visit in her home. Response to the resident’s reports of multiple outstanding repairs. Complaint handling.