What the Housing Ombudsman Can (and Can't) Do

The Housing Ombudsman Service is a free, independent body that resolves disputes between social housing residents and their landlords in England. Across 16,224 published determinations, it has found 2,499 cases of severe maladministration and ordered £7,607,904 in total compensation, with a median award of £450. Landlord Record analysis of Housing Ombudsman decisions (Open Government Licence v3.0).

The Ombudsman can investigate complaints, reach formal findings, issue binding orders and monitor compliance. It cannot act as a court, impose fines, rehouse residents or override legislation. Understanding both sides helps you decide whether the Ombudsman route is the right one for your situation.

What the Housing Ombudsman can do

The Ombudsman has a defined set of powers designed to resolve individual complaints and improve landlord service. Here is what it can do in practice.

Investigate and reach a determination

The Ombudsman can investigate complaints from residents of member landlords. It gathers evidence from both sides and reaches a determination on each part of the complaint. Each part receives an outcome such as no maladministration, maladministration, partial maladministration or severe maladministration. You can read more about what these outcomes mean in our guide to maladministration.

The investigation process is evidence-led. The Ombudsman will typically ask the landlord for its complaint file, correspondence, repair records and any other relevant documents. It will also consider evidence from the resident. This structured process means the outcome is based on what actually happened, not just who complained loudest.

Issue orders the landlord must comply with

When the Ombudsman finds maladministration, it makes orders that the landlord must follow. These commonly include:

• An apology — often at a senior level, with a commitment to improve communication. For many residents, a formal acknowledgement that the landlord got things wrong is an important part of putting things right.
• Financial compensation — reflecting distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, and sometimes financial loss. See our compensation guide for how this works.
• Completing repairs or other specific action — such as inspecting a property, fixing a defect, reimbursing a cost, or returning a deposit. These are practical remedies that directly address the problem.
• Reviewing a policy or changing a process — so the same failing is less likely to happen again. This can benefit not just you, but other residents in similar situations.
• Staff training — where a skills or awareness gap contributed to the failing.

The Ombudsman monitors whether landlords comply with its orders. If a landlord fails to comply, the Ombudsman can report that publicly and take further steps. For residents, this means a complaint can produce both personal redress and systemic improvement. See our guide to complaining to the Housing Ombudsman for the steps to escalate a complaint.

Order compensation

Compensation is one of several remedies the Ombudsman can use. It is not automatic — the Ombudsman weighs severity, duration and impact — but it is a real outcome in many cases. The Ombudsman applies its published remedies guidance rather than a fixed tariff, so each case is decided on its own facts. See our compensation guide for how the Ombudsman decides amounts.

Monitor and report on compliance

The Ombudsman does not simply issue a decision and walk away. It tracks whether landlords act on its orders and can publish reports on compliance. This oversight is one reason member landlords generally follow Ombudsman decisions. The threat of public reporting gives the Ombudsman significant practical authority even though it is not a court.

What the Housing Ombudsman cannot do

Knowing the limits is just as important as knowing the powers. The Ombudsman cannot:

• Act as a court — it does not award damages, issue injunctions or enforce tenancy terms through legal proceedings. Its remedies are designed to put things right between resident and landlord, not to punish the landlord or deliver court-style damages.
• Fine your landlord — the Ombudsman has no power to impose financial penalties or fines. Compensation is a remedy for the resident, not a penalty on the landlord.
• Rehouse you — the Ombudsman cannot order a landlord to grant a transfer or provide alternative accommodation. Housing allocation is a separate process governed by local authority policies and waiting lists.
• Overrule legislation or tenancy contracts — its role is to assess whether the landlord's handling was reasonable and fair, not to rewrite the law or reinterpret your tenancy agreement.
• Investigate everything — matters that are the subject of active court proceedings, or that fall to another body such as the Regulator of Social Housing or the police, may be outside its jurisdiction.
• Intervene before you exhaust the landlord's process — you normally need to give your landlord a fair chance to respond first. Escalating too early can result in the Ombudsman declining to investigate until you have completed the landlord's procedure.

If your goal is to force immediate physical action, stop an eviction, or claim very large damages, a court route may be more appropriate — though it comes with costs, risk and delay. The Ombudsman route is best seen as a structured, free way to obtain a formal assessment and a practical remedy.

When to use the Ombudsman versus another route

The Ombudsman is not the only option. Choosing the right route depends on what you need.

Use the Ombudsman when:

• You have exhausted your landlord's complaints procedure and are unhappy with the final response. The Ombudsman expects you to use the landlord's process first, so a clear final-response letter strengthens your position.
• You want a free, formal determination of whether the landlord handled your complaint reasonably. The Ombudsman process costs nothing and does not require a solicitor.
• You want practical remedies — an apology, compensation, repairs, or a policy change — without the cost and risk of court proceedings.
• You want the landlord's failing documented and published, which can help prevent the same problem for other residents. Published determinations create a public record that landlords take seriously.

Consider court instead when:

• You need an injunction to force immediate action, for example to stop a serious health hazard or prevent an eviction. Only a court can issue an injunction.
• You are seeking damages beyond the Ombudsman's remedies — court claims can potentially award higher sums, but they involve costs, risk and formal procedure.
• Court proceedings are already underway — the Ombudsman will normally decline jurisdiction while a court is dealing with the same matter. You should finish the court process or seek legal advice on how the two routes interact.

Consider the Regulator of Social Housing when:

• The issue is about systemic failing or regulatory compliance rather than an individual complaint. The Regulator sets standards and can intervene where landlords breach them, but it does not resolve individual disputes or award compensation to residents.

For more on the Regulator's role, see our guide to the Regulator of Social Housing.

What the data shows

Landlord Record indexes and analyses published Housing Ombudsman decisions to show what actually happens. Here is what the current dataset shows.

Where compensation is ordered, the median award is £450, with a middle range (25th to 75th percentile) of £200 to £900. The average is £808, but this can be pulled upwards by a small number of very large awards. The highest single award in the dataset is £358,282. Landlord Record analysis of Housing Ombudsman decisions (Open Government Licence v3.0).

These figures are indicative, not predictive. The Ombudsman decides each complaint on its own facts. A well-documented case with clear evidence of prolonged failure, poor complaint handling and measurable impact is more likely to attract a strong finding than a thinly documented grievance. The data shows that complaints do produce outcomes — but the strength of the outcome tracks the strength of the evidence.

Severe maladministration is the most serious finding the Ombudsman can make. It reflects serious or repeated failings, or a significant adverse impact on the resident. When the Ombudsman reaches this finding, it usually makes the strongest orders — including higher compensation and more extensive corrective action. While severe maladministration is not the most common outcome, its presence in the dataset shows that the Ombudsman does find against landlords meaningfully when the evidence supports it.

You can explore the full dataset through our decisions search, browse the severe maladministration rankings, or read our guide to whether it is worth complaining.

Sources

The outcome figures on this page come from Landlord Record's structured analysis of published Housing Ombudsman decisions under the Open Government Licence. For the official guidance on the Ombudsman's powers, complaints process and remedies, see the Housing Ombudsman website and its make-a-complaint guidance.