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.
The complaint is about: the impact of repair issues on the health of the resident and his daughter. the landlord’s handling of: work to the kitchen extractor fan. leaks, damp, mould and bathroom extractor fan repairs. window issues. We have also considered the landlord’s record keeping. complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Reports of errors made on the service charge account. Concerns about the level of the management fee charged.
The complaint is about the landlord's handling of the leaseholder’s: Reports of errors made on the service charge account. Concerns about the level of the management fee charged.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about: The offer of a property. The condition of the property when let. This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Repairs to communal areas. Repairs to the property. The resident’s reports of the bin area not being kept clean and tidy. The resident’s reports of damp and mould. The replacement of the boiler and radiators and installation of a stopcock. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB). The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
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.
The complaint is about the landlord’s decision to restrict the resident’s heating and hot water.
The complaint is about: The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the landlord did not return some of his phone calls and used withheld phone numbers when it did phone him. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.