Housing Ombudsman Case ID: 202226334  

The case was about: 

• The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould affecting the property. 

• The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination received: 21 October 2024 

• In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould affecting the property. 

•  In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping
  

Orders:  

• a. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. 

• b. Pay the resident compensation of £530, comprised of : i. £180 in recognition of its maladministration in respect of its record keeping. ii. £350 in recognition of its maladministration in respect of its handling of reports of damp and mould affecting the property. (This payment is in addition to the £100 compensation it has already awarded).  

• 2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to carry out an inspection of the guttering and to report its findings to the Ombudsman and the resident, along with details of any action it plans to take based on those findings. 

Colchester Borough Homes has complied with the orders made by the Housing Ombudsman.  

Housing Ombudsman Case ID: 202310994  

The case was about: 

• The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the condition of the property when they moved in following a mutual exchange.  

• Repairs required at the property once they had moved in.

Determination received: 24 September 2024 

• In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the property when they moved in following a mutual exchange.  

• In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required at the property once they had moved in.  

Orders: 

• Write to the resident and apologise for its failure to repair locks on windows and doors sooner and for its poor communication in the summer of 2023.  

• Pay the resident £150 in recognition of those failures. 

Colchester Borough Homes has complied with the orders made by the Housing Ombudsman. 

Housing Ombudsman Case ID: 202321024  

The case was about: 

• The landlord’s response to various repairs within the property and the resident’s request for compensation for damaged belongings.  

Determination received 26 July 2024 

• In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its response to various repairs within the property and the resident’s request for compensation for damaged belongings. 

Orders: 

• Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified. 

• Pay the resident £800 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this case. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £400 which should be paid if it has not already done so. 

• Arrange a survey to assess any outstanding repair issues within the property and give the resident the opportunity to raise any concerns that are outstanding.  

• This should include but is not limited to: i. Plastering affected by the historic leak. ii. Floor covering in the kitchen. iii. The bathroom floor covering. iv. The bedroom radiator. v. The kitchen and kitchen units. b. Arrange a damp survey to assess the resident’s reports of damp and mould.  

• This should be completed by a surveyor not involved in the assessments in October 2023. The survey should, in part, assess whether there is dampness in the flooring and lower walls due to the historic leak and determine whether this has been resolved.  

• The landlord should appoint a staff member to oversee and manage works through to completion and act as a point of contact for the resident.  

• Within 2 weeks of the surveys, the landlord should write to the resident, setting out:  

• a. The findings of the surveys along with any related reports.  

• b. Its understanding of each repair raised including an explanation of whether works are needed or not, what work it intends to complete, and the expected timescale for the completion of works.  

• c. Any support it is able to offer the resident in view of the previous concerns related to providing adequate access in order for works to be completed.  

• Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to provide assistance to the resident in raising a claim via its liability insurer. If the timescale for raising an insurance claim has now passed, it should ask the resident to provide evidence of the damage caused and make an offer of redress. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman within the specified timescales. 

Recommendations:  

It is recommended that:  

• The landlord communicates with the resident and discusses any reasonable adjustments that can be made to support it in communicating with her and to support her in allowing access to the property.  

• b. The landlord considers the resident’s request for compensation for increased energy usage during the period in which her front door was in need of replacement between May 2022 and December 2023. The resident will likely need to provide evidence of increased usage in the form of energy statements for this to be considered.  

• c. The landlord considers providing training to staff responsible for responding to complaints to ensure that all aspects of a complaint are adequately addressed, and decisions are clearly explained. It may wish to consider using the Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning and Learning Hub to access guidance and resources.  

• d. The landlord reviews its processes for recording information relevant to repairs to ensure there is a clear audit trail of no access visits and notes confirming what works were completed on each visit within its repair records. The landlord is to confirm its intentions in relation to the above recommendations within 4 weeks.  
  
  

Housing Ombudsman Case ID – 202226995 

The case was about:  

• The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.  

• The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling. 

Determination received 8 April 2024 

• In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.  

• In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.  

Orders: 

• Apologise for the failings identified in this report. 

• Pay the resident £950 in compensation, made up of:  

• i. The £400 it offered for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs (if it has not already done so).  

• ii. A further £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.  

• iii. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.  

• Given its silence on these matters throughout the complaint, write to the resident to outline:  

• i. When it plans to upgrade the cavity wall insulation. 

• ii. Its position on the bee infestation, and how it can support the resident to address it.  

• Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:  

• a. Considering the ongoing concerns about damp, mould, and water ingress, instruct an appropriately qualified, independent surveyor, to inspect the resident’s property and identify any repairs needed.  

• b. Conduct a review into its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs, and identify points of learning to reduce the risk of similar failings occurring again, with a particular focus on: 

•  i. The impact of its failure to show learning throughout the complaint.  

• ii. Its knowledge and information management, including record keeping.  

• iii. Its poor communication with the resident, and internally.  

• c. Conduct training with its complaint handling staff, with a particular focus on:  

• i. The importance of a thorough and transparent complaint investigation that seeks to show learning about admitted failings.  

• ii. The importance of responding to all aspects of the complaint.  

• iii. The importance of proactively communicating complaint response delays to the resident and acknowledging any delays in its complaint responses. 

   

Colchester Borough Homes complied with the orders made by the Housing Ombudsman.  

Housing Ombudsman Case ID: 202219825  

The case was about:  

• The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak affecting his property.  

• The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling. 

Determination received 26 March 2024 

• In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.  

• In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. 

Orders: 

• Pay the resident the sum of £1104.90 compensation. (Please note if the £300 compensation previously offered has been paid this can be deducted from the total)  

• This consists of a. £254.90 amenity loss calculation – this is 10% of the resident’s weekly rent of 74.97 over 34 weeks. b. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak. c. £50 for the inconvenience caused in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.  

• An executive officer should offer to meet the resident in person to apologise for the failings identified in this report.  

• The landlord should carry out refresher training with its Complaint Handlers involved in this case with a particular focus on carrying out investigations, compliance with The Code and identifying lessons learned.  

• The landlord should also review the failings identified in this report against the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on knowledge and information management, and on attitude, respect and rights.  

Recommendations  

• The resident has informed this Service that he is unsure as to the current position of his liability insurance claim with the landlord’s insurer. The resident has said they requested evidence of the damaged items which he was unable to provide but he has not heard anything since. Given this, the landlord should make contact with its insurer and provide an update to the resident on this claim and any action required to move this forward. 

   

Colchester Borough Homes complied with the orders and recommendations made by the Housing Ombudsman.  

Housing Ombudsman Case ID: 202127711  

The case was about: 

• the landlord’s handling of an allegation of Anti-Social Behaviour (“ASB”) against them. 

Determination received 18 December 2023 

• In accordance with section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been maladministration landlord’s handling of an allegation of Anti-Social Behaviour against the resident. 

Orders: 

• The Ombudsman requires the landlord pay the resident £500 compensation for distress and inconvenience within four weeks of the date of this Determination.

   

Colchester Borough Homes has complied with the orders made by the Housing Ombudsman. 

Housing Ombudsman Case ID: 202201413  

The case was about: 

• The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould.  

• Reports about a pest infestation.  

• Concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff. 

• The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping. 

Determination received 13 December 2023 

• In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould. 

• In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a pest infestation, was not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.  

• In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff, was not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. 

• In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.  

Orders:  

• Pay compensation of £100 directly to the resident in recognition of the resident’s inconvenience, time and trouble, caused by failures in complaint handling and record keeping. 3 This compensation has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance 

• The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above order, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.  

Recommendations  

• The landlord should consider how it presents information to the Ombudsman, so that the landlord’s actions are clearly evidenced.

   

Colchester Borough Homes has complied with the orders and recommendations made by the Housing Ombudsman.  

Housing Ombudsman Case ID: 202110444  

The case was about: 

• The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.  

• The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling. 

Determination received 30 August 2023 

• In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of ASB.  

• In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.  

Orders: 

• Pay the resident £1250, comprising: a. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to manage the ASB case effectively. b. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failings identified by this investigation.  

• A senior member of staff should issue the resident with an apology, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.  

• Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should consider the failings identified in this case, and provide refresher training to relevant staff to ensure that they:  

• a. Are aware that case management must be based on the merits of a case and that proportionate investigation is not over -looked because of tenancy history.  

• b. Are aware of the evidential test required to enforce breaches of: i. The terms of the tenancy in relation to noise nuisance. ii. Community Protection Warnings. iii. Acceptable Behaviour Contracts.  

• c. Complete risk assessments for all cases reported.  

• d. Complete action plans in agreement with the complainant to ensure that appropriate steps are taken in a timely manner. The landlord should confirm the date and content of the training to the Ombudsman, also within six weeks. 

Recommendations  

• The landlord should:  

• a. Review its ASB policy and procedure to reflect the principles of the Antisocial behaviour, Crime and Policing act 2014. It should ensure it takes a harm centred approach to its response to ASB, including the use of risk assessments and action plans.  

• b. Review its remedies policy to ensure that it complies with Section 6.1 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This should include financial redress for distress, inconvenience or unfair impact. Further guidance can be found here: Guidance on remedies (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).  

• c. Develop a management move policy and/or procedure to ensure that requests for management moves are considered against a criteria-based on risk and/or need. This will provide a fair and transparent method of assessing requests for managements moves.

   

Colchester Borough Homes has complied with the orders made by the Housing Ombudsman.  

Housing Ombudsman Case ID: 202122725 

The case was about: 

• The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of her new home. 

• The landlord’s handling of the residents concerns about pests in the property. 

Determination received 28 July 2023 

• In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of her new home. 

• In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about pests in the property.

Orders: 

• Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified within this report. 

• Within 4 weeks of this report, that landlord should provide the resident and this Service with written confirmation of any outstanding work, and an action plan, including timescales, for completion. This should include setting out any work the resident is responsible for carrying out and explaining its reasons for reaching this decision. 

• The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250 (including the offer of the decoration vouchers and reimbursement of associated rodent costs, if it has not already done so) within four weeks of this report, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her.  

• Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord should review this case in relation to its void standard and advise this Service how it intends to ensure that works are completed within a reasonable timescale from the tenancy start date in future. 

• The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

   

Colchester Borough Homes has complied with the orders made by the Housing Ombudsman.  

Housing Ombudsman Case ID: 202127271 

The case was about: 

• The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to their garage including exposed asbestos.  

Determination received 21 June 2023 

• In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the damage to the resident’s garage. 

Orders: 

• None 

Housing Ombudsman case ID: 202214451 

The case was about:  

• The resident’s reports about a neighbour’s cat entering her home and garden.  

• The resident’s reports about a neighbour’s garden overgrowing onto her walkway.

Determination received 2 May 2023 

• In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of: 

• The resident’s reports about a neighbour’s cat entering her home and garden. 

• The resident’s reports about a neighbour’s garden overgrowing onto her walkway. 

Orders: 

• None. 

Recommendations:  

• Liaise with the resident and the owner, in order to re-offer the water-sprayer, if the owner is agreeable.  

• Ensure it provides residents with sufficient information regarding the action it is taking when an issue concerns a neighbouring property. This should be in line with General Data Protection Regulations.

   

Colchester Borough Homes has complied with the recommendations made by the Housing Ombudsman.   

Housing Ombudsman case ID: 202200422  

The case was about: 

• The landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) 

• The landlord’s response to reports of the conduct of a staff member. 

Determination received 20 September 2022 

• In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the reports of ASB. 

•  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of staff conduct. 

Orders:  

• Pay the resident £350 in compensation for the adverse effect caused by its handling of the ASB reports.  

• Write to the resident, copying in this Service, setting out an action plan for addressing the ongoing ASB with the neighbour.  

• Carry out a review of the handling of the ASB reports in this case, to determine the causes of the failings, and what action has/will be taken to prevent recurrence of these.

   

Colchester Borough Homes has complied with the orders and recommendations made by the Housing Ombudsman.  

Housing Ombudsman case ID: 202119755  

The case was about: 

• the landlord response to the resident’s reports of defective guttering causing a leak into her property. 

Determination received 9 September 2022 

• In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of defective guttering causing a leak into her property. 

Orders: 

• Within 28 days, the landlord should: 

• Pay an additional £200 compensation to the resident. 

Recommendations: 

• Re-offer the £50 redecoration vouchers or redecoration of two ceilings to the resident.  

• Engage with the resident to address the reported dampness in her property caused by a roof leak and carry out remedial work as appropriate.  

• Review its procedures for communicating with residents about their repairs, to ensure that they are kept informed of the status of any reported repairs.

   

Colchester Borough Homes complied with the orders and recommendations made by the Housing Ombudsman.  

Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. 

LGO case reference: 24 011 793 

The case was about: 

• Mr X says the Council acted with bias when seeking medical evidence to inform it’s assessment of whether the family were eligible for additional priority on health grounds.  

Determination received 15 January 2025 

• We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council carried out the medical assessment because it did not cause sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.  

LGO case reference: 24 010 717  

The case was about: 

• Mx A says the Council did not provide suitable temporary accommodation.  

Determination received 21 November 2024 

• We will not investigate this complaint because Mx A could have used their review rights and because there is insufficient of fault by the Council. 

LGO case reference: 24 001 671 

The case was about: 

• The decision by the Council to suspend a housing application for 12 months after Miss X started a new tenancy and re-applied to the Housing Register.  

Determination received 18 June 2024 

• We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.  

LGO case reference: 23 005 864  

The case was about: 

• Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider the suitability of her temporary accommodation. 

Determination received 10 November 2023 

• We discontinued our investigation. That is because events moved on. The Council re–housed Miss X to a home that meets her needs. There is no significant remaining injustice to Miss X or no worthwhile outcome achievable by further investigation. 

LGO case reference: 22 014 201 

The case was about: 

• Miss J complains about the Council’s failure to act on her reports of damp, mould, and lack of means of escape in the event of a fire in the privately rented property she was placed in after she was forced to leave a previous dangerous property. 

Determination received 22 June 2023 

• The evidence currently suggests fault by the Council on Miss J’s complaint about it failing to consider the means of escape from the accommodation it inspected. There is no evidence it considered this at the time. The recommended action remedies the injustice caused. 

Orders: 

• Send Miss J a written apology for failing to: show it considered the means of escape from the accommodation when it carried out its inspection. 

• Remind officers of the need to make and retain evidence of consideration given to the means of escape during inspections.  

• Review whether the inspection form needs amending to show consideration and assessment of the means of escape during inspections.

   

The Council complied with the orders made by the LGO.  

LGO case reference: 22 015 774 

The case was about: 

• The actions of the Council in respect of his homeless application.  

Determination received 14 September 2023 

• We found the Council failed to give Mr C sufficient notice of the termination of his interim accommodation and delayed in carrying out a medical assessment. 

Orders: 

In recognition of the injustice caused I recommended the Council within one month of the date of my final decision:  

• Apologises to Mr C and pays him a total of £500: £250 for the insufficient notice that the interim accommodation was ending and £250 for the delay in carrying out a medical assessment 

• Reviews its procedures to ensure where a homeless applicant raises medical issues that the Council completes a medical assessment in a timely manner and reaches a decision on priority need. 43. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

   

The Council complied with the orders made by the LGO. 

LGO case reference: 23 006 799  

The case was about: 

• How the Council and the complainant’s Housing Association has dealt with reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour since 1995.  

Determination received 6th September 2023 

• No further investigation because the Council has considered the matter in 2015 and again in 2021 and reached the same conclusions. The Council dealt with the complaint in 2021 and signposted the complainant to the Ombudsman. We will not investigate as the complaint has been made late.  

LGO case reference: 21 017 049  

The case was about:  

• Mr X complained he and his family are living in unsuitable housing which has a detrimental effect on his family’s health. 

Determination received 22 November 2022 

• We find the Council has appropriately followed legislation, policy and procedure in allocating housing. 

• The Council are at fault for misclassifying autism, failing to understand Mr X’s additional needs and failing to record and explain a decision to remove the garden as a reasonable preference. 

Orders:  

• Apologise to Mr X in writing.  

• Review Mr X’s family’s need for a garden and explain its decision fully in writing.  

• Make a payment of £500 for the distress caused to Mr X and the time and trouble he has taken to deal with this complaint. 

   

The Council complied with the orders made by the LGO. 

LGO case reference: 21 013 723  

The case was about: 

• The time it took the Council to support into suitable housing.  

Determination received 4th August 2022 

• A finding of fault by the Council. Although the Council too steps to alleviate any immediate danger, it failed to act on evidence provided to it that demonstrated receipt of Disability Living Allowance (DLA).  

• The Council failed to make a referral to social care services when it had enough information to do so. Mr Y should have been referred for a sheltered accommodation assessment sooner and this caused an injustice. 

Orders: 

• The Council has agreed to:  

• a) Explain what it will do to ensure evidence it receives as part of any application is considered and used as appropriate.  

• b) Pay Mr X an amount of £300 in recognition of the stress and trouble incurred from the ongoing living situation the Council could have otherwise reduced.  

• The Council has agreed to complete action a within two months of the Ombudsman’s final decision, and action b within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision.

   

The Council complied with the orders made by the LGO. 

LGO case reference: 22 000 233  

The case was about: 

• That the Council was unreasonably refusing to award Band A priority on its Housing Register.  

Determination received 10 June 2022 

• We do not have reason to investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council has unreasonably denied her Band A priority on its housing register.  

• This is because the Council has now taken satisfactory action to address this matter by reviewing Miss B’s application and awarding her Band A priority.