Decisions

Our decisions are published 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 3 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.

Loading...

One Housing Group Limited (202219629)

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property. The landlord’s record keeping has also been considered.

Reliance Social Housing C.I.C (202204234)

This complaint is about the landlord’s responses to concerns raised about: The resident being asked to sign his occupancy agreement under pressure and being threatened with eviction. The suitability of the resident’s occupancy agreement. Its handling of repair reports and concerns about the facilities provided at the property. The support offered to the resident. This complaint is also about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reliance Social Housing C.I.C (202211732)

The complaint is about: The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the property given his disabilities. The suitability of the resident’s occupancy agreement. The landlord’s request for the resident to sign a blank licence agreement and failure to issue a fully completed copy of the licence agreement.  The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the support provided. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Saxon Weald (202224256)

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated survey. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Bromford Housing Group Limited (202216722)

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Repairs to the resident’s over bath shower screen. The formal complaint, including its refusal to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.