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...

Settle Group (202121780)

The complaint is about the resident’s concerns relating to the landlords handling of her data.

Southwark Council (202111896)

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of inadequate cleaning to the communal parts of the building.

Haringey Council (201914247)

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a roof leak , its offer of compensation for consequential damage to the resident’s possessions, and remedial works to the resident’s property.

Housing 21 (202016290)

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of allegations made about the resident swearing at a member of staff and the issuing of an antisocial behaviour (ASB) warning letter to him.

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202004890)

The complaint is about the landlord's response to: The leaseholder’s request for information regarding service charges. The leaseholder’s complaint. All the landlord’s complaint responses were outside of the timescales given in its complaints policy. The delay in the first response was not particularly unreasonable in the context of the first national lockdown, but by the later dates it would have been reasonable for the leaseholder to be advised that deadlines had been extended if required. The stage two response of 26 June 2020 could have been the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, but the landlord offered to revisit the matter again, then failed to respond to the leaseholder’s further response of 20 July 2020, despite the acknowledgment. The second stage two response of 8 February 2021 was again very late and identified multiple failings in relation to the complaint handling and with providing a resolution to the leaseholder. However, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord was candid about what had happened, apologised for errors in the service charge accounts and explained new procedures which would be put in place. It increased the offer of compensation offer for failing to respond to the complaint to £450. It did not give appeal rights to this Service but by this time the landlord was aware that the leaseholder had approached the Ombudsman, so this did not impede the complaint process. The landlord has failed on several fronts in the handling of the complaint, which grew directly from its earlier failure to respond to the communication regarding the service charge. The £150 initially offered in respect of the landlord’s failings to address to leaseholder’s legitimate questions about the service charge was reasonable. Once that grew into a repeated failing to process the leaseholder’s complaint it was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances that a higher sum was awarded. The landlord’s final offer of £450 is near the maximum of its published range of compensation (which is up to £500) for major impact for delay or distress and inconvenience. This range would include compensation for failings which may affect a resident’s day to day living and wellbeing, for example a delay in heating being repaired. As such, it is at or above that which would have otherwise been recommended by this Service in this instance, had an offer not already been made. Although this case has been ongoing for far longer than was necessary due to the failings of the landlord, it did then take appropriate action to respond to the leaseholder’s concerns. Also of note, is that the landlord has reviewed its processes and cited learning from this investigation to avoid this happening to others.