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 landlord’s: Handling of window replacements to the resident’s property. Handling of damp and mould. Handling of the replacement to the resident’s shower tray. Handling of pest control in the resident’s garden. Complaint handling.
The complaint is regarding the landlord’s response to: Reported damp and mould in the resident’s property. Reported damage to the resident’s belongings. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of: Damp and mould. A boiler fault. This report has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.
The complaint is about:
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour.
The complaint is about the landlord's handling of the resident’s reports of: Damage to the new kitchen following a leak. The associated complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak which caused damage to the resident’s ceiling. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
REPORT COMPLAINT 202311968 Together Housing Association Limited 29 October 2024 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 […]
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB). The resident’s reports about a neighbour installing closed-circuit television (CCTV). The associated complaint, including the resident’s concerns that the landlord had facilitated a breach of his human rights. The landlord’s complaint policy said, “we will log a complaint when the customer requests that their issue is dealt with as a complaint even if there is no clear service failure or explicit expression of dissatisfaction”. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time said that “landlords must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. If a landlord decides not to accept a complaint it must be able to evidence its reasoning. Each complaint must be considered on its own merits”. The resident completed a complaint form on the landlord’s website on 12 December 2022 and received an automated response to acknowledge it. However, the landlord did not log this as a complaint. Its failure to do so cost the resident time and trouble because he chased a response on 6 and 7 February 2023. Despite him making it very clear in these chaser emails that this was a complaint about the landlord that a senior manager should respond to, and not an ASB complaint, the landlord still failed to log the complaint. This failure cost the resident further time and trouble because he had to contact this Service for assistance. This also ultimately delayed his access to an investigation by this Service. In the stage 1 complaint response the landlord did not mention that the resident had complained on 12 December 2022. It did, however, say that it considered his email of the 7 February 2023 to be a complaint. This failure to fully investigate and discover when the initial complaint was made cost the resident further time and trouble because he had to raise it again in his complaint escalation request. In the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it had located a copy of the complaint of 12 December 2022 and discovered that it had been logged against the ASB case. It said that it had addressed this as part of the ASB case. However, this explanation was not acceptable because it did not address all the issues raised in the complaint as part of the ASB case. It also did not follow its own complaints policy when it failed to log the complaint. It also failed to acknowledge the full impact that this failure had on the resident and the delays this had caused. It is apparent from the resident’s chaser emails that this made him feel frustrated and unheard and that it caused him considerable distress. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If this is not possible an extension of no more than 10 working days will be agreed with the complainant. This is in line with the Code. Even after this Service logged a complaint on the resident’s behalf there were further delays at each stage of the complaint process. The stage 1 complaint response was 3 working days later than the policy stated it would be and the stage 2 complaint response was 15 working days late. The landlord wrote to the resident 25 working days after he asked for the stage 2 complaint to be escalated to agree a further extension of 10 days. The complaint response was already overdue at this time. It said the reason for the request was because the complaint was “not assigned correctly”. In reality, the resident had no other option but to agree to the request. These complaint handling delays caused him further distress and further delayed his access to an investigation by this Service. The Code said that “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”. The resident’s original complaint clearly stated that he felt that the landlord had “facilitated a breach of his human rights” because his privacy had been invaded. He also highlighted this in his request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. However, the landlord failed to address this in its complaint responses. The landlord should have considered whether its failure to act on the removal of the CCTV cameras had caused a breach in the resident’s human rights and if so, what action it could reasonably have taken to rectify this. It should then have communicated the decision and its reasons for making it with the resident. The landlord’s failure to do so meant that the resident did not feel that his complaint had been answered fully. It was also a failure to adhere to the Code. This led to further frustration for the resident, and it cost him further time and trouble because he escalated the complaint to this Service for an investigation. The landlord also failed to fully address the resident’s reports of indirect discrimination due to his gender. It merely said that it could give him “assurance that its ASB policy is applied the same way regardless of gender”. It’s failure to properly investigate this, to check if it had followed its ASB procedures correctly and provide a meaningful response caused the resident further frustration and distress. The Code also said “where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. These can include taking an action where there has been a delay”. The complaints responses did not offer a solution to the CCTV issue. Despite admitting that there had been failings in its handling of it, the stage 1 response only said that it “was looking into the matter” and that it “would be brought to a conclusion in the near future”. The stage 2 response said that “appropriate steps are now being taken”. These vague promises were not sufficient to reassure the resident that the landlord had the situation under control. This caused him further distress and cost him more time and trouble escalating the complaint. It is unclear how much of the £300 compensation offered at stage 2 reflected the landlord’s complaint handling failings. However, this was not proportionate to the distress and time and trouble experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings . Therefore, an order to pay £500 has been made. Due to the failings identified there has been maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.