Cheltenham Borough Homes Limited (202222578)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222578

Cheltenham Borough Homes Limited

31 March 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to communal security gates.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant at the property since 20 January 2014. The property is a 3-bedroom ground floor maisonette within a block. There are 4 fob-controlled gates that allow access to the land around the block. The resident informed us that the property has its own garden area which is not enclosed and can be accessed by any individuals that enter the communal gates. The resident lives in the property with her 3 children who were aged 10, 8, and 7 at the time of the complaint. The landlord has told us that it was aware at the time that 2 of the children have global development delay.
Between August and December 2021, the landlord logged 8 requests for repairs to the communal gates at the block. These mainly concerned vandalism of the locking mechanisms. On 14 March 2022 the resident reported that 2 of the gates were vandalised again but she was not sure who was doing it.
On 29 June 2022 the resident contacted the landlord via webform. She said that the gates were still broken even though she had reported the issue previously. She explained that this prevented her children from playing outside. She said she would like to raise a stage 1 complaint.
On 26 August 2022 the resident called the landlord and complained formally about antisocial behaviour (ASB) of a neighbour. The landlord acknowledged receipt of this complaint the same day and arranged to visit her. As she was not available until 13 September 2022, she agreed that the landlord could respond to the complaint by 19 September 2022.
At the visit the resident said that she also wanted the landlord to investigate its management of the communal gates as part of the complaint. She said that they had been damaged for several months and this meant that her children were unable to play outside without supervision.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 19 September 2022. It said that:
1. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about its handling of the ASB (the resident did not pursue this element of the complaint any further).
2. Non-residents had repeatedly damaged the gates and it had written to all residents in November 2021 to try to find out who was causing the damage. However, it received no information. Following this it decided to consider an alternative way of securing the gates but had not yet finalised this.
3. It apologised for its lack of progress and upheld this aspect of her complaint.
4. A contractor would repair the gates on 4 October 2022 and it would work to find a long-term solution to the issue.
5. It offered a £50 Cineworld voucher as a gesture to make up for this ‘lapse of service’.
On 16 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. She said that the gates were still broken and asked it to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
On 25 November 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to tell her that the contractor had attended to fix the gates within the agreed timescale but was unable to. Therefore, it intended to discuss this at a meeting the following week. It emailed her again on 29 November 2022 to tell her that it would be meeting 2 contractors on site the following week.
On 7 December 2022 the landlord raised 2 work orders for 2 different contractors. It asked contractor A to supply gate closures and magnets and contractor B to provide 2 welded metal covers to protect the hydraulic gate piston closures and complete the groundwork for contractor A.
On 19 June 2023 the landlord chased contractor A to fit the gate closures. The contractor confirmed that it would fit these on 27 June 2023.
The resident contacted us for help and we emailed the landlord on 13 July 2023 and asked it to provide a stage 2 complaint response. The landlord confirmed that it had escalated the complaint and would arrange a stage 2 complaint panel review meeting.
On 14 July 2023 an internal email confirmed that all the gates at the block were now working with the fob system. However, on 4 August 2023 another internal email said that there were 3 issues with the gates. These were that 2 of the magnets were not holding the gates shut and one of the ‘push to exit’ buttons was accessible from outside the gate meaning that anyone could lean in and press it enabling them to enter without a fob.
The complaint panel met on 8 August 2023. The resident was present at the meeting. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 15 August 2023. It said that:
1. It had not kept the resident informed that the contractor had attended after the stage 1 complaint. It therefore apologised for this and upheld this part of her complaint.
2. It had done everything it could to keep the promise it made in the stage 2 complaint response to repair the gates by 4 October 2022. However, it could not achieve this because it needed to programme the work with specific parts designed and manufactured. Therefore, it did not uphold this part of her complaint.
3. It had not escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the process when she requested, so it upheld this part of the complaint.
4. It offered £150 compensation for the emotional impact its failures in communication had caused.
In March 2025 the resident told us that the gates are currently insecure and that the landlord has not yet relocated the ‘push to exit’ button.

Assessment and findings

Security gates

The tenant’s handbook provided by the landlord states that it is responsible for repairs in communal areas and that it will complete routine repairs within 15 working days. An example given of a routine repair is the repair of fences and gates.
There is evidence that there were ongoing issues with the gates and that the resident reported that they were insecure in March 2022. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to this report which meant that the resident had to chase it up in June 2022. This cost her time and trouble.
The stage 1 complaint response confirmed that the landlord had not fixed the gates within an appropriate timeframe and upheld this part of her complaint. The landlord then promised to send a contractor to fix the issue on 4 October 2022. However, the contractor could not resolve the problem and the gates remained insecure. The landlord failed to communicate this to the resident and she had to chase it again in October and November 2022, costing her further time and trouble.
The landlord finally met with contractors on site in early December 2022, 8 months after the resident had reported the issue. This was an unacceptable delay and the landlord failed to comply with its repair responsibilities. It was a further 7 months before the contractors completed the work. We have seen some evidence that the landlord chased them during this time but this was sporadic and did not result in the contractors completing the work in a timelier manner.
The resident told the landlord that her children were unable to play in the garden due to the insecure gates and this caused her considerable distress and inconvenience over a long period. This included the summer months when she should have been able to use the garden that she paid for but was unable to. The landlord was aware that 2 of her children had additional needs that might reasonably mean this amenity loss would have an elevated impact on the family. However, we have seen no evidence of urgency in the landlord’s actions.
Even when the contractors completed the work, there were further problems with the magnets not being strong enough and the ‘press to exit’ button being situated inappropriately so that anyone could enter the scheme. We have seen evidence that the contractors replaced the magnets in October 2023 but the resident has informed us that they did not relocate the button. This meant that the gates failed to provide the intended security.
Due to the long delay in responding to the resident’s report, the landlord’s failure to comply with its repair responsibilities in a timely manner, and its poor communication throughout the process, there was maladministration in its handling of repairs to the communal gates. It offered the resident a £50 voucher at stage 1 of the complaints process to reflect this. However, this was not proportionate to the distress, inconvenience, loss of amenity, and time and trouble experienced by the resident because of its failings. Therefore, we have ordered it to pay £500 compensation to the resident to reflect this. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance
The resident has also informed us that the landlord told her when she took over the tenancy that it would be making changes to the area to make it more secure and prevent the grounds of the block from being used as a shortcut. She said that if she had realised the garden would be insecure, she would not have rented the property. Therefore, we have also ordered the landlord to provide its position to the resident regarding this and recommended that it discusses housing options with her. Alternatively, it could discuss the viability of a solution for her own garden area such as the provision of suitable fencing.

Complaint handling

The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code in place at the time of the complaint (the Code), said that a complaint must be defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about a standard of service by the organisation affecting a resident.
There is evidence that the resident first complained about the security gates on 29 June 2022. However, the landlord did not log or respond to this contact as a complaint. This failure to follow the Code meant that it did not investigate the issue and use its complaints process to find a resolution at an earlier stage. This prolonged the complaints process. It cost the resident time and trouble because she had to contact it again. It also delayed the resident’s access to an investigation by this Service.
The Code also said that if the landlord did not resolve all or part of the complaint to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. Unless an exclusion ground now applied. If the landlord decided not to escalate a complaint it must clearly communicate in writing its reasons for not escalating as well as the resident’s right to approach the Ombudsman about its decision.
The resident clearly asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 16 November 2022. However, it did not escalate the complaint or write to her to give reasons why it did not do so. This failure caused her inconvenience and cost her time and trouble because she had to contact the landlord again. She then had to take time and trouble contacting us for help. This further delayed the complaints process and her access to an investigation by this Service.
The Code also said that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
The stage 2 complaint investigation did not address the key complaint issue. The resident complained that the gate locks had not been repaired for a long period. However, the landlord did not investigate why the delays had occurred and how it would rectify this. It merely investigated whether the gates could have been repaired by the date given in the stage 1 complaint response. This lack of a full and appropriate investigation meant that it did not find out why the failings had occurred and how it could learn from these.
The Code also said that complaint handlers should be able to act sensitively and fairly and that residents are more likely to be satisfied with complaint handling if the person dealing with their complaint is empathetic.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered what effects the insecure gates would have on the family. The resident told it on more than 1 occasion that her children could not play outside unsupervised and the landlord knew that 2 of the children had additional needs that might reasonably be affected by this. This failure to follow the Code with an adequate level of empathy or understanding meant that the complaint was not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction and she had to take time and trouble escalating the complaint to us.
In summary the landlord failed to respond to the first complaint and failed to escalate the complaint to stage 2 when the resident requested. It did not address the core complaint in the stage 2 complaint response and failed to acknowledge the difficulties the family were experiencing due to the outstanding repairs. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord offered £150 at stage 2 of the complaints process to reflect that it did not respond to the stage 2 complaint and did not communicate well. However, we do not consider that this reflects the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by the other failings identified. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 to reflect this, this replaces the previous offer of £150. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the communal security gates.
2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident directly £750 compensation comprising:
1. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its failings in handling the security gate repairs.
2. £250 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.
3. This replaces the previous offer of £150 and therefore £150 should be deducted from the total if this has already been paid.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must put its intentions in writing regarding the security gates moving forward. This to include:
1. If it intends to relocate the ‘push to exit’ button and if so the likely completion date for the work.
2. Any repairs it intends to complete to the gates to comply with its repair obligations to make the area fully secure.
3. Clarification on its intentions for the scheme considering that the resident says that she was informed that the grounds would be made more secure.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must review the complaint handling aspect of this case. It must provide a report to us to explain how it will now ensure that:
1. All complaints are logged, responded to, and escalated appropriately.
2. Complaints officers are clear about the requirement to provide timely responses across all stages of the complaint process.
3. Complaints officers are aware of the expectations of the application of empathy and consideration of the impact of complaint handling on households where additional needs are identified.
4. Complaints officers ensure that the core complaint is fully investigated.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider whether additional fencing is appropriate to secure the resident’s garden area and discuss the outcome of this with her. If fencing of an area is not feasible it should review the residents housing application to ensure that it is banded appropriately considering her circumstances. It should then speak with the resident and give her housing options advice to manage her expectations moving forward.