From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Brighton and Hove City Council (202326066)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326066

Brighton and Hove City Council

1 May 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about access for postal deliveries.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder under an agreement dated 2019. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the first floor. The landlord is a local authority. The landlord does not hold information on the vulnerabilities of leaseholders.
  2. The resident said that he complained for several years that it was not possible to receive deliveries (from providers other than Royal Mail) when he was out. In Autumn 2022, he approached his local MP to ask that they advocate on his behalf. The MPs office contacted the landlord to report that the resident was facing issues with receiving deliveries and asked if there were plans to resolve the issue.
  3. Between December 2022 and June 2023, the landlord, resident, and several representatives discussed the issue. The landlord stated that the trades button had been removed following resident consultation before the resident had moved into the property, and that Royal Mail had fobs to access the building.
  4. The landlord offered several alternative options including arranging deliveries when he was in or to an address where someone could receive it, using a holding site provider or arranging delivery through Royal Mail. However, it said it was unable to provide an external letter box.
  5. On 13 June 2023, the resident made a stage 1 complaint. He said:
    1. he had been complaining for years that there was no way to get deliveries to his property because the landlord’s door was blocking access. He said this was against his lease agreement.
    2. he had made multiple suggestions, and the landlord had not considered these.
    3. the issue was seriously affecting his mental health and business.
    4. none of the landlord’s proposed solutions were viable.
    5. he also complained about the charge for new windows, disruption from this work and anti-social behaviour from his neighbour.
  6. The landlord responded on 28 June 2023. It repeated information already shared and apologised for a delay in fixing the resident’s intercom system. It said it did not have any reports of repairs needed to the main entrance door but would inspect this. It also said:
    1. it did not believe the door system contradicted the lease agreement. The agreement permitted persons authorised by the resident to enter the building and he could grant access by buzzing people he wished to in.
    2. the charge was for preventative planned maintenance on the windows. It offered to arrange an in person meeting to discuss payment options further.
    3. it gave further information on the windows work timeframe and stated it understood works are disruptive. It said it had asked contractors to adapt their behaviour.
    4. there was currently an open ASB case against his neighbour and it was working to take appropriate action.
  7. The resident responded on the same day and stated he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. On 29 June 2023, the landlord thanked the resident for his comments and said he must contact the landlord’s complaints team via webform, email or writing to escalate to stage 2.
  8. On 30 June 2023, the resident used the webform to escalate his complaint. He:
    1. repeated the points previously made.
    2. noted it was not possible to receive physical notification that delivery had been attempted.
    3. directed the landlord to a video he had made illustrating the problem.
    4. did not address the service charge, window or ASB points further.
  9. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 14 September 2023. It defined the complaint and repeated the points and solutions offered made at stage 1. It also said it could not offer solutions within the realms of the building and explained the risks associated with this.
  10. The resident asked this Service to investigate his complaint on 7 December 2023. He said he was not happy with the landlord’s response. He wanted the landlord to provide a way for deliveries (other than from Royal Mail) to be made when he was not home.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The purpose of the complaint process is to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity. Residents are encouraged to raise complaints in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues and reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As issues become historic, it becomes increasingly difficult to assess the events that took place and how matters were handled. 
  2. The resident has said that he has reported the deliveries issue for years. However, the Ombudsman may be unable to consider complaints about matters which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of reports raised between 15 December 2022, when the resident’s representative approached the landlord, and the landlord’s stage 2 response on 14 September 2023.
  3. In his stage 1 complaint, the resident raised issues regarding ASB and window repairs. The landlord’s internal complaint procedure investigated and responded to several issues. However, the resident has subsequently confirmed to this Service that they only consider the issue defined at paragraph 1 to be outstanding.
  4. The resident said he has brought a separate complaint to this Service relating to the communal cleaning and service charges. This issue was addressed in a separate complaint procedure. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues addressed in the landlord’s stage 2 response on 14 September 2023 which was brought to this Service for investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about postal deliveries

  1. The lease agreement says that the resident or people authorised by him have the right to access the property via the communal areas at any time of day and night. The resident is responsible for authorising individuals’ access to the property by using the intercom system.
  2. The landlord has stated that the resident is responsible for their own deliveries. It checked that the resident was able to use the intercom system to grant access to the building and suggested alternative options for delivery. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s responsibilities.
  3. The landlord confirmed that a ‘trades button’ had been removed in 2018 following resident consultation. This was before the resident moved into the property.
  4. On 27 January 2023, the landlord explored the possibility of launching a new resident consultation regarding the trades button. It concluded that:
    1. the age of the current doors system meant that parts may not be available.
    2. in 2020, it had previously identified the door entry system in the block for replacement. This was quoted for and leaseholders consulted. However, works had been halted due to pressure from the resident’s association at the time.
  5. It may have been useful to share details of the consultation process with the resident and to explain how the resident could formally request a new consultation if desired. However, the landlord reasonably explored the option as part of its consideration about the resident’s concerns.
  6. The landlord did not have a responsibility to provide an external postal box for the resident. It has however shared evidence that it assessed providing this for the property. The landlord concluded this was not a viable option due to potential hazards. It also explained these risks to the resident. This was reasonable.
  7. The Ombudsman understands that the resident says he is frustrated by the issues with deliveries. However, the landlord is not responsible for providing an external delivery box or for granting delivery people access to the property. The landlord considered the resident’s complaint and offered several alternative options.
  8. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s actions were reasonable and in line with the terms of the lease. The landlord explored alternative delivery options with the resident and communicated its decision to him in its complaint responses. Accordingly, there was no maladministration in this case.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. A landlord’s complaint handling should aim to resolve issues quickly, effectively, and fairly. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out what good complaint handling looks like. The Code and further guidance are available on our website.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy, at the time of the resident’s complaint, operated a 2-stage complaint process. The landlord said it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and provide a response within 10 working days.
  3. Stage 2 complaints would be acknowledged in 2 working days. The complaints team would then either:
    1. refer to the department involved with recommendations for action.
    2. decide not to investigate if the case had already been comprehensively investigated, correct procedure had been followed, or nothing further could be achieved.
    3. conduct further investigation. If this happened, a response would be given within 20 working days. The landlord would ensure the resident would be kept informed of progress if that timescale could not be met.
  4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 13 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 15 June 2023. This was within 2 working days and in line with its complaint policy.
  5. The landlord gave a stage 1 response on 28 June 2023. This was in line with its complaints policy.
  6. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction to the stage 1 on 28 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged this but said it could only accept an escalation through specific contact to the complaints team. It is noted the resident did not explicitly ask it to escalate his complaint.
  7. However, that the landlord did not open a stage 2 complaint at this stage was unreasonable, and a failing in its complaint handling. The Code states that “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2”. That it did not do so is evidence it operated an obstructive complaints process.
  8. The resident escalated via the complaints form on 30 June 2023. The landlord responded on 14 September 2023. That was 56 working days after the resident initially expressed dissatisfaction and 54 working days after he escalated using the official form.
  9. This was an unreasonable delay, and well outside of the timeframes set out in the landlord’s policy, and the Code. Its failure to progress with the complaint when it was made created a protracted and unfair complaint process for the resident. The landlord did not apologise for the delay in response and this was not reasonable.
  10. The Ombudsman considers this did amount to maladministration. While the delay did not impact the outcome of the substantive complaint, the landlord did not:
    1. escalate the resident’s complaint when he first expressed dissatisfaction at its stage 1 response.
    2. acknowledge or apologise for the delay in providing a stage 2 response, which is not in line with our dispute resolution principles of putting things right and learning from outcomes.
  11. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance the landlord should pay £100 for complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about postal deliveries.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord should pay the resident £100 for failures in its handling of the resident’s complaint. Documentary evidence of this should be sent to this Service within 28 days.