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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to her requests for repairs to her front gate and fencing. The resident also complained about the landlord’s handling of her requests for repairs to the WC, hallway, kitchen and a security light.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cold air entering his property. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of noise and antisocial behaviour (ASB).
The complaint is about: The landlord's handling of reports that contractors had not done communal cleaning. The landlord's handling of communal repairs. The Ombudsman has also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.
The complaint is about the landlord's handling of: Repairs to the door entry system during and after a power cut. Concerns about fire safety and whether the landlord provided a service in return for the fire safety service charge.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s concerns about refurbishment works at the property and the subsequent remedial works. The associated complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Repairs to the flooring in the upstairs bathroom and downstairs wet room. Reports of damp and mould. Reports of a rat infestation. The complaint. The landlord operated a 2-stage complaints policy. The policy states the landlord will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. The landlord will provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. The resident raised her complaint on 22 February 2023. The evidence indicates that the landlord did not identify the resident’s initial complaint, which was not logged until 10 March 2023. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that this delay was either reasonable or unavoidable. This was a failure by the landlord. In the absence of a complaint response, the resident approached this Service for support. On 6 April 2023, this Service instructed the landlord to provide its complaint response no later than 17 April 2023. This should not have been necessary. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to effectively manage complaints without the involvement of this Service. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 21 April 2023, which was 41 working days after the resident raised her complaint, and 4 working days after the deadline set by this Service. This was not acceptable as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Ombudsman’s expectations. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the delay in providing its response and apologised for this. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation the same day and advised it would respond by 2 June 2023. Again, in the absence of a complaint response, the resident approached this Service for support. On 26 June 2023, this Service instructed the landlord to provide its complaint response no later than 3 July 2023. Again, this should not have been necessary and was a significant failure by the landlord. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 3 July 2023, which was 35 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord did not acknowledge the delay, explain why it had delayed in providing its response, or apologise for this. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord and a missed opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered £3,990 compensation, of which £1,500 was offered for distress, inconvenience, and the lack of communication from the landlord. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this could have been satisfactory to resolve the resident’s complaint. This is because the compensation offered is consistent with this Service’s guidance on remedies and significantly more than what the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to offer. However, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord has recognised its poor complaint handling. As a result, the resident has been unreasonably delayed in seeking redress through this Service. The landlord ought to apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report. Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints.
This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports about drain blockages and smells.
The complaint is about: The landlord’s handling of and response to the resident’s concerns about repairs following a structural survey. The landlord's complaint handling.