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 resident has complained about the landlord’s: Handling of noise nuisance from a flat on the floor above. Communication with the resident in relation to the issue. Handling of the associated formal complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Repairs to the resident’s immersion heater. The associated complaint.
This complaint is about: The resident’s request to be rehoused; The landlord’s response to the resident’s disrepair concerns, including: a roof leak, damp and mould; The landlord’s complaint handling; The landlord’s record keeping.
The complaint is about the landlord’s: Response to the resident’s reports of multiple repairs required at the property. Complaint handling. Record keeping.
This complaint is about: The landlord’s handling of repair work to the communal front door. The landlord’s handling of repair work to the resident’s letterbox.
The complaint is about the landlord’s: Communication regarding appointments for a gas safety check, a stop tap leak and a damp and mould inspection. Handling of the associated complaint.
The landlord’s handling of reports of: Defective heating in the property. Damp and mould in the property. Repairs needed to the property. A rodent problem in the property. The related complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs.
This complaint is about the landlord’s response to concerns raised about the attitude and approach of the resident’s former housing officer and the resident’s request for that officer to be changed. On 17 June 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response, referring to a formal complaint registered on the resident’s behalf by their Independent Mental Health Advocate (IMHA) on 27 May 2021. The landlord said that, with regards to the attitude and approach of the resident’s former housing officer, it had been explained to the resident that the officer in question no longer worked for it, which limited the extent to which it could investigate the resident’s concerns. Nevertheless, the housing officer in question was an experienced officer who, to its knowledge, always conducted herself professionally and was well regarded by colleagues and partner agencies. The landlord apologised for any distress that may have been caused by the officer’s approach, however, its review of the files had not given rise to any concerns in relation to the named housing officer’s management of the case. With regards to the resident’s requests for a change of case officer, these were given appropriate consideration, including case reviews by two senior officer, both of whom concluded that there was no reason to change the case officer’s in question. The landlord said that it could find no reason to suggest their conclusions were unreasonable. The resident’s IMHA contacted the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage two on 14 and 28 July 2021. The IMHA reiterated that the resident’s previous housing officer’s attitude and approach towards them was difficult and threatening. They had repeatedly highlighted that the resident and her sister had literacy issues and issues with processing information, however, correspondence was not in an easy read format and no consideration had been given to the resident or her sister’s mental health needs. They were concerned about the landlord’s lack of understanding about their role as an advocate, about mental health problems, literacy issues and the traveller community, and that the sisters were seen as difficult residents, not residents with needs. The landlord issued its stage two, and final, response on 5 August 2021. The landlord said that it in its stage one response it had explained that it no longer employed the housing officer in question. It had apologised for any distress that her approach may have caused, and also explained that the request to change case officers was considered and declined on two separate occasions by two senior officers. The landlord went on to say that: It would not be able to agree to the resident’s request for a named housing officer, as the housing team was a small team of three, working together across cases, and in the past there had been difficulties if an officer was off sick or on leave. Safeguarding training was compulsory across the whole organisations, with specific training for different roles. Equalities and diversity training, including traveller discrimination, would be added to the housing officer team’s training plans. Officers were aware of the Mental Health Act and Care Act in supporting and referring residents through to advocacy services, and this would be reaffirmed at the next team meeting. Its housing system did have the capability to put a flag to identify individual needs, but up until that point it had not been used, due to previous concerns around data protection. The landlord said it would review this and develop a policy to support this.
The complaint is about the landlord’s: Handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to plaster cracks at the property. Complaint handling.