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.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of: A fallen tree and damage caused to her fence Delays in the boiler installation Mould on the bathroom ceiling A window leak in the bedroom We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about: A faulty boiler at the property. A gas safety inspection. Her medical information which was related to her vulnerabilities. The associated complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s: Response to the resident’s reports of damaged paving in a communal area. Response to her concerns about cleaning and grounds maintenance issues. Complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. The resident’s request for a transfer. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and repairs in the bathroom. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s property.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of: A pest infestation and a request for temporary accommodation Repairs to the drains
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to: The resident’s reports of water leaks in the temporary property and his subsequent request for compensation. The resident’s request for compensation for personal items that went missing after moving to the temporary property.
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to: The resident’s concerns about the support it provided and his request for a male housing officer. The resident’s request to be moved and concerns he would be evicted. The complaint. The landlord responded to the complaint at both stages of its process within reasonable timescales between 22 October 2024 and 6 December 2024. The resident expressed concern that the landlord had escalated the complaint to stage 2 without consulting him on 6 December 2024. Given the resident’s communication detailing his dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response on 7 November 2024, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 and provide a final response. It acted reasonably by notifying him that it would be escalating the complaint to stage 2 on 12 November 2024 in an acknowledgement letter. However, we have found failing in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Its stage 1 complaint response failed to suitably recognise his concerns that it had not signed him up to the local authority for housing and intended to serve him with a no-fault eviction. As set out above, he had clearly raised concerns about the support offered in relation to moving, and it was a failing that it did not address this. In addition, following his communication on 7 November 2024, its acknowledgement did not recognise his concerns that it had “missed the point”, that the living environment was not suitable for him, or that he had “begged” for support in moving since January 2024. The landlord did not address these concerns in its subsequent stage 2 complaint response on 6 December 2024. We have not seen evidence to show that it contacted the resident to understand his reasons for escalation which would have been appropriate where this was not clear. It is of concern that instead of analysing and addressing the resident’s concerns about the support it had provided him in the months prior to the complaint, the landlord’s response focused on his engagement with the support it offered and said that not engaging with it may put his tenancy at risk. This was heavy handed and unfair to the resident. It would have been appropriate for it to have set out the steps it had taken to assist him, any limitations it had faced, and the specific action it would take moving forward in response to his request to be moved. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord failed to utilise the complaints process to fully address the resident’s concerns about the support it provided in relation to his request to be moved. It did not set out a specific plan of action as to what steps it would take moving forward. Its response was likely to cause frustration to the resident as many of his concerns remained unresolved.