Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Decisions

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.

Date

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

Landlord Name

Landlord type

Complaint Category

Outcome

Tenure

Orders

Loading...

Golding Homes Limited (202318490)

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Concerns over car parking outside her house. Concerns about a potential data breach. Associated complaint.

Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202332670)

REPORT COMPLAINT 202332670 Hammersmith and Fulham Council 26 February 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 […]

Lewisham Council (202405801)

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB). reports that a neighbour sublet their property. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

London Borough of Harrow (202317581)

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s service charge information and services dispute. The resident’s complaint. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as the landlord: Did not accept the resident’s email of 16 May 2022 as a complaint, despite the resident explaining that he had been wating for a response to a dispute he had submitted on 8 September 2021. Additionally, he said that he expected a response within 7 days. This was not in keeping the landlord’s corporate complaints policy, which says a complaint is when anyone is dissatisfied with the service, actions, or lack of action from the landlord. Did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint of 3 May 2021, in keeping with paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time of this complaint. The Code says that a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within 5 days of receipt. Did not say if it had upheld the stage 1 and/or the stage 2 complaint in keeping with paragraphs 5.8 and 5.16 of the Code. These paragraphs say that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made. Did not fully address the complaint, such as by evidencing the caretaking works it had completed, which it had billed the resident for as a service charge. It also did not address the resident’s complaint about its calculation of the outstanding service charge, which he said had been incorrect. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.6 of the Code, which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged a delay in its handling of the service charge dispute, it offered an apology, and it said that it had changed how its staff managed service charge enquiries. The landlord offered a further apology for its delay in refunding a charge to the service charge account in its final complaint response. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, acknowledgement of service failure, and a review of its operating procedures) was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord recognised a delay in responding to the complaint and it explained that it had amended its procedures. This was appropriate and it evidenced that it had learned from outcomes. However, while the apology sought to put right the matters, the landlord failed to consider whether an award of compensation should be offered to the resident for the delay. It also did not acknowledge the further complaint handling failings this investigation has identified. The landlord has a compensation procedure and was able to offer compensation for poor complaint handling and service failure. Its failure to do so was a missed opportunity to put things right and regain the resident’s confidence in its housing services. We consider that an award of compensation is due under the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The guidance suggests a range of awards where, like here, service failure is found that has not been proportionally addressed by the landlord. An award of £75 within the above range is therefore ordered below, as well as an apology, as proportionate compensation for the inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident from the likely effect of the landlord’s complaint handling failings over a short duration.

North Kesteven District Council (202314992)

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about: The condition of nearby allotments. The condition of her garden when she moved into the property. Repairs to her bathroom and electric fire. A wasp infestation.