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...

Stonewater Limited (202325785)

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the rear external door and windows. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Colchester City Council (202333886)

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of The resident’s concerns about allegations of ASB made by a neighbour. The installation of a fence.

LiveWest Homes Limited (202202223)

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: reports of an overgrown tree and concerns about the suitability of the tree. reports of damage caused to her car from the tree. the complaint. The resident complained to the landlord in May 2023 about damage to her car from the tree. The landlord delayed in registering and responding to this complaint. Instead, it directed her to its earlier complaint response. It was appropriate that it acknowledged and apologised for this in its eventual stage 1 response of October 2024. As noted by the landlord, this delayed the resident being able to escalate her concerns through its complaints process, and to the Ombudsman. The landlord’s award to the resident of £300 was fair and reasonable recognition of the impact of its complaint handling failings. It told the resident that it had since put in place more thorough triaging of complaint requests to prevent similar issues reoccurring. That was positive and appropriate. The landlord did not provide its stage 2 complaint response within its 7-working day target. However, we acknowledge it provided a detailed and thorough response to the complaint which involved it obtaining and reviewing a range of information. It communicated with the resident during its investigation and advised her of its aim to respond by 15 November 2024, which was 5 weeks after its acknowledgment of her complaint escalation. It provided its response on that date. We have found reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of failings in its complaint handling.