All our decisions are published here 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 three 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.
REPORT COMPLAINT 202300740 Central Bedfordshire Council 22 May 2025 Our approach The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is […]
The complaint is about: The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked toilet and waste back-surging into her bath. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The complaint is about how the landlord handled: The resident’s request for a parking bay. Staff use of visitor bays. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: reports of a pest infestation. reports of damp and mould. the complaint. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord was operating an interim complaints policy following a cyber-attack. Under this, it aimed to provide stage 1 complaint responses within 20 working days. Its initial complaint response to the resident was just outside this timeframe. It was appropriate that it acknowledged and apologised for this delay in its eventual response. Its award to the resident of £50 was appropriate. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to the resident was within its interim target of 40 working days. While that was the case, this timescale is longer than it would normally aim for under normal circumstances. It was reasonable that it apologised to the resident for the delay in its eventual response. The resident set out in her complaint how her son was distressed by issues. The landlord identified in its stage 2 complaint response that it should have addressed this concern in its earlier response. Records show the landlord spoke to the resident in early October 2023 about her concerns. However, it was appropriate that it acknowledged its failure to address this matter in its stage 1 complaint response. It did not set out what part of the £150 further award it made was in recognition of this. However, with consideration to all the circumstances and with reference to both the landlord’s own compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, it was a fair and reasonable award. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The complaint is about: The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the windows. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s: Reports of sewage upsurge in the property. Temporary decant.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Reports of damp and mould and associated repairs. Reports about his kitchen floor tiles. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with: the garden paving. use of the shared garden. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling .
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.