Hundred Houses Society Limited (202423589)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423589

Hundred Houses Society Limited

29 April 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns regarding access for gas safety checks (AGS).
2. Reports of repairs, damp and mould, and a pest infestation.
3. Concerns regarding charges for repairs.
4. Requests for reasonable adjustments.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord and has lived in the third floor flat since 1997. The landlord took over the management of the flats following a transfer from another landlord in 2020. The landlord’s records note the resident has limited mobility, learning and communication difficulties, hearing and breathing difficulties, heart concerns, and mental health issues.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 October 2023 after receiving an AGS appointment letter. She asked for a female engineer and said the landlord needed to arrange the moving of furniture and clearance of the rooms to allow the completion of the AGS as she said she had not been able to do this for 2 years due to her disabilities. The resident also advised there were repairs that the landlord needed to address.
The landlord proposed a date for the AGS but advised it could not find a female engineer. It asked the resident to report the repairs so they could be addressed. The AGS was subsequently completed in November 2023 by a male gas engineer.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 4 September 2024, in which she said:
1. it needed to provide an intermediary to act as a contact as she did not want to deal with the landlord directly
2. she felt discriminated against, threatened and harassed by staff
3. she needed help with the clearance of the property to allow the completion of the upcoming AGS
4. it had repeatedly said she was responsible for paying for repairs
5. it had refused its responsibility under health and safety and equality law
6. there was dangerous wiring, faulty plumbing, pest problems, and she asked for a door entry system to be installed
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 23 September 2024. In summary it said:
1. it had been looking for a female engineer to conduct the AGS but there were none in the area
2. the engineer who attended the previous year could attend again but as the resident declined this offer, it had asked for a different engineer to attend
3. in terms of the alleged harassment, it had followed procedure when contacting the resident regarding the AGS appointments
4. it had no record of the resident reporting the repairs listed, but offered to assess these to see what it could do to make access easier for the resident due to her health conditions
5. it did not charge for repairs in the home, nor was there any recharge on the resident’s account
6. it had offered to visit the resident to establish if there were any support requirements it could offer, but the offer was declined
7. it provided a list of support agencies, but the resident said none of them were suitable for various reasons
8. it was not responsible for clearing waste, and although it had collected several bags as a one-off gesture, when more bags appeared, a £25 recharge was raised, but would be written off as a further offer of help
9. it wanted to help and could look for an organisation to help clear and clean the flat, but access was needed to assess what was required
10. it was not feasible to install a waste chute; however, it would look into funding a one-off waste collection
11. it had offered to help the resident to register on the local authority’s housing register to find a more suitable property
12. it would work with the resident to find a suitable medical charity to assist with her health concerns; however, it was likely to need the input from a GP
13. it would look into installing a door entry system but due to an increase in service charges it would require resident consultation
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 November 2024. She remained dissatisfied with:
1. issues relating to access and the facilitation of the AGS
2. alleged discrimination, harassment, and threatening behaviour from staff
3. an alleged data breach
4. health and safety concerns
5. the lack of reasonable adjustments made
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 26 November 2024. In summary, it said:
1. regarding the AGS, no eviction notice had been issued, and no court action had been taken; however, it may apply for an injunction to gain access to the property, albeit a last resort to ensure compliance to legal safety requirements and to ensure the safety of the resident and surrounding neighbours
2. its communication had been in line with its policies and procedures
3. it had made a safeguarding referral on 23 September 2024 due to concerns for the resident’s well-being and after she informed it she was housebound due to mobility and health challenges
4. it had investigated the complaint regarding the data breach and advised the safeguarding referral had been made in line with its policy and the resident’s legal name had been used as required, it apologised for any upset caused and provided information on the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if the resident remained unhappy
5. the resident had declined the landlord’s offer to visit her to address the challenges, would not engage with health services, or accept referrals to support agencies it had suggested
6. it had suggested a range of third-party agencies and intermediary options to support the resident, but all had been declined
7. it was committed to fulfilling its obligations under the Equality Act and supporting the resident’s specific needs and had made adjustments which included:
  1. flexible home visits
  2. professional assistance for access issues and a proposal to engage with professional contractors to ensure safety
  3. a personalised support plan
  4. communication adjustments to facilitate communication
The resident referred her complaint to us on 14 January 2025. The complaint was about:
1. concerns regarding the AGS
2. the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould and repairs
3. concerns regarding charges for services not received
As a resolution the resident wanted us to act as an intermediary and seek volunteers and funding to arrange the clearance of the flat to allow the facilitation of the AGS.
The landlord has evidenced that the property was cleared on 15 January 2025 and the AGS was completed on 17 January 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to a breach of data protection and the way the landlord managed personal information. This element of the complaint is more appropriate for the ICO therefore it will not be included in this report. The resident has confirmed she has referred this matter to the ICO; therefore, she should seek the outcome of its investigation directly with the ICO.
In her complaint, the resident stated she was the subject of discrimination, threats, and harassment from the landlord. We are unable to investigate such allegations as these are criminal matters therefore this issue will not be included in this report. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, she should seek legal advice or report it to the police.
The resident said that because of the behaviour and conduct, she wanted the staff members to be accountable for their actions and dismissed. While we can look at concerns regarding staff conduct, it is outside our role to consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings or employment matters.
The resident has referred to the landlord not fulfilling its duties under the Equality Act and failing to make reasonable adjustments. While we can consider whether a landlord has given due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act, it is not within our remit to determine whether an individual’s human rights have been breached or whether a landlord has acted unlawfully in relation to its equality duties. This is a matter for the courts therefore, if the resident wishes to pursue this, she should seek legal advice.
The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on her health along with damage caused to personal belongings. Although we can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability for damage to health or belongings. These are matters better suited to an insurance claim or court. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, she should seek legal advice.
While it is evident from the information provided that there has been a lot of historical contact between the resident and the landlord, there is no evidence of a formal complaint being made prior to September 2024. As we expect a resident to raise a complaint within 12 months of matters occurring, it is reasonable to focus this report on events that occurred from September 2023 to the 26 November 2024, the date of the final complaint response.

Concerns regarding access for AGS

The resident’s tenancy agreement states the resident:
1. should keep the interior of the premise in good and clean condition and should not put, keep, or store anything in any part of the building other than the premises without written consent
2. should report any disrepair or defect for which the landlord is responsible
3. is to allow employees or contractors acting on behalf of the landlord access at all reasonable hours of the daytime to inspect the condition of the premise or to carry out repairs or other works to the premise
In line with regulation 36 of the Gas Safety Amendment Regulations 2018, the landlord’s heating safety policy confirms it has a legal duty to ensure each appliance and flue to which that duty extends has been checked and serviced within a 12-month period. The policy states:
1. the checks will be carried out by a suitably competent and qualified gas engineer
2. the check can be carried out any time from 10-12 months after the last completed check, without affecting the original expected expiry date
3. residents will be provided with a minimum of 5 opportunities to allow access to complete an AGS before the case is escalated to legal remedy to gain access which could involve applying for an injunction
The landlord sent the resident an appointment letter on 5 October 2023 confirming the appointment for the AGS on 6 November 2023. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy.
The resident asked the landlord to arrange a female gas engineer and for the use of personal protection equipment (PPE). The landlord confirmed it had looked for a female engineer but could not find one. It suggested a female chaperone to be present while the AGS was being conducted. This was a reasonable suggestion by the landlord; however, the resident maintained she wanted the name of a female engineer so she could vet her in advance. The landlord repeated the offer of a female chaperone due to the lack of availability of a female engineer. This was reasonable.
The resident said she had not been able to clean the property or clear the waste for 2 years due to her disabilities, and so it would need to facilitate the clearance and cleaning of the property before the AGS could be completed. The landlord confirmed it had told the contractor to wear PPE and that it may need to move items to allow access to parts of the flat. This was reasonable.
At the request of the resident, the appointment with the initial contractor was cancelled and a new one made with a different contractor for 20 November 2023 when the AGS was completed.
On 28 August 2024, the landlord sent the resident a letter to confirm the next AGS was due by 19 November 2024 and that the contractor would contact her to make an appointment. This was appropriate and in line with policy.
As part of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 23 September 2024, it confirmed its search for a female gas engineer as requested the previous year. Although there were none in the area, it said it could arrange for the same engineer who attended the previous year to attend again. The resident declined the offer stating the engineer had damaged her property therefore the landlord asked for a different engineer to attend. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and demonstrated its efforts to collaborate with the resident.
The resident said the flat remained inaccessible and was a hazard due to the waste that had accumulated. The landlord confirmed it understood the resident needed help in clearing the property and advised it wanted to help, but after noting the decline of all previous offers, it asked how it could help. The resident told the landlord she had asked us to act as the intermediary in obtaining volunteers and funding for 3 to 4 skips to clear the property so the AGS could be done. She also asked for ongoing weekly clearances as she could not afford cleaning and had not done any for 15 years. This is noted, however as our role is to investigate a complaint impartially, we are unable to act as an intermediary.
On 10 October 2024 the landlord confirmed the AGS appointment for 24 October 2024 and said it would be present to support with moving any belongings. The resident sent the landlord photos on 10 October 2024 which showed the rooms in their current state. The landlord confirmed it needed to assess the property to understand the extent of the work and an appointment was arranged for 23 October 2024 with the agreement of the resident. The landlord asked the resident if the AGS could be done at the same time.
This was reasonable and demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to help the resident and reduce the inconvenience and disturbance of a further visit. However, the resident cancelled the appointment and said she would prefer not to have contact from the landlord. While the frustrations of the resident are noted, this contributed to the landlord’s difficulties in meeting its legal obligations, assessing the property, and offering the resident the help requested.
On 5 November 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the AGS and property clearance. It repeated its offer to have items cleared to allow access for the AGS and asked the resident for a suitable date for this to be done. It reminded the resident of the legal action that could be taken if access was not given. This was a reasonable offer by the landlord and while the resident confirmed at least 8 people and 2 or more skips would be needed, she said we or a member of its Board would have to find volunteers and a charity to fund and carry out the clearance.
The resident escalated her complaint and said she had not refused access, but the landlord needed to arrange the clearance as there was no access to certain areas of the property. She repeated the landlord would have to find volunteers and a charity to fund the clearance and find a group who would clear away the bags on a weekly or fortnightly basis.
The landlord’s final complaint response confirmed it had not served an eviction notice, or taken legal action, but did advise that if access was not granted, then as a last resort, it would apply for an injunction. It confirmed all offers of visits to address the concerns and offer support had been declined. With evidence of the attempts of access made, and the list of 12 support agencies suggested to the resident, the landlord’s response was reasonable.
After the final complaint response, the landlord evidenced continued efforts in trying to gain access. It worked with the local MP who was acting as an intermediary to gain access. The property was cleared on 15 January 2025, and the AGS was completed on 17 January 2025.
In summary and taking the evidence into consideration, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding access for the AGS. This is because the landlord:
1. acted in line with the gas safety legislation and its own heating safety policy
2. offered to support the resident with the clearance of the property
3. attempted to find a female gas engineer and offered reasonable alternatives when this was not possible
4. provided a list of support agencies for the resident to contact for help
5. arranged the clearance of the property to allow the completion of the AGS

Report of repairs, damp and mould, and a pest infestation

In line with the statutory duty set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord’s repair policy confirms it must keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling house including for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences but not fixtures, fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of water, gas or electricity).
As noted above in this report, the resident is expected to report any defects or disrepair for which the landlord is responsible.
On 16 October 2023 the resident informed the landlord there were “a number of maintenance issues that needed addressing”; however, no further information was given. The landlord asked the resident to report the issues so they could be addressed however its repair records confirm the resident did not report any repairs as requested. This was reasonable.
On 9 November 2023 the resident told the landlord repairs were needed to the plumbing and wiring. The landlord advised the resident of a planned visit by surveyors to the block of flats on 16 November 2023 and asked if she would like a visit to assess the repairs. Although the resident did not respond, the surveyors visited the resident but did not gain access to inspect the property.
With no further evidence of any repairs being reported by the resident, on 4 September 2024 as part of her complaint, she told the landlord there was faulty wiring and plumbing, damp problems, pest problems and no door entry system. In its complaint acknowledgement, the landlord asked if it could visit the resident to discuss the issues in more detail. This was reasonable; however, the resident said she wanted an intermediary to act as her contact with the landlord. While the landlord reminded the resident of her obligation to allow it access to the property, there is no evidence the repair issues progressed.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 23 September 2024 the landlord addressed the repairs raised by the resident. It advised of and repeated its previous offer to assess what was needed after confirming there was no record of any repairs being reported by the resident. It advised it could look at installing a door entry system; however, it would involve a consultation exercise with residents due to the potential increase in service charges.
The landlord advised the resident it could look into what organisations could clear and clean the flat and confirmed it wanted to help her. The landlord asked the resident to confirm what she wanted so it could make plans and share any proposals with her. This was reasonable and demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to help.
In its final complaint response, the landlord’s efforts of access and support provision to the resident focussed on the AGS and did not refer to the repairs she reported. As the landlord has a repair responsibility it should have made it clear in its communication what its intentions were in relation to these. There is no evidence it did. This was a failure by the landlord in terms of its repair responsibilities.
Considering the above, we find service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs, damp and mould and pest infestation. This is because it did not:
1. attempt to seek more information and raise the repairs on behalf of the resident when it knew she needed support
2. refer to the repairs in its final complaint response
3. communicate its intentions to the resident regarding how it could progress with the repairs
4. offer any redress for its failures
Due to the determination made, an order has been made for the landlord to confirm how it will support the resident in assessing the repairs required.

Concerns regarding charges for repairs

The tenant handbook states, “if the resident causes neglect to the home, the landlord will charge the resident the full cost of the repair, this can include special cleaning.”
On 18 October 2023 the resident stated the landlord had tried to charge her for faulty plumbing for which she was not liable. On 26 October 2023 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it did not charge for repairs.
On 4 September 2024 the resident said the landlord had “repeatedly” made it clear that she was expected to pay for maintenance. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord advised it did not charge for necessary repairs to the home and confirmed it had checked her account and there were no recharges for any repairs. Furthermore, the landlord informed the resident that it had waivered the £25 clearance fee that it had charged following the removal of the additional waste as a further gesture of support. As there is no evidence of any charges being added to the resident’s accounts for any repairs, or any communication regarding charges for repairs, the landlord’s response was reasonable.
Considering the above, we find no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding charges for repairs.

Requests for reasonable adjustments

The landlord’s adaptation policy states “it is committed to supporting residents to live as comfortably as possible in their homes and will work with the resident and other agencies such as the local authority, health professionals and charities to determine if an adaptation is required and the best solution.”
On 9 October 2023 the resident told the landlord it had declined to make reasonable adjustments for her disabilities. She said it was required to make adjustments and referred to a lack of consultation around an evacuation plan. The landlord confirmed it had a ‘stay put policy’ so the resident was not expected to evacuate. Further, it confirmed the fire box in the block of flats included information on the resident’s needs which would inform the fire service of the assistance needed. It offered to visit the resident to explain the process in more detail but there is no evidence the offer was accepted. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was, however, reasonable and aimed to provide assurance to the resident.
The evidence shows that throughout her contact with the landlord, the resident requested several specific adjustments to help with her disabilities. These included:
1. a female gas engineer for the AGS
2. a different gas contractor to the previous year
3. the landlord sourcing an intermediary to support the resident in her contact with the landlord
4. the clearance of her property to allow access for the AGS
5. a waste disposal chute due to her not being able to manage the stairs
In response to the requests above, the landlord has evidenced it:
1. searched for a female gas engineer and offered the alternative for a female officer to be present when one could not be found
2. arranged for a different gas contractor to complete the AGS
3. offered several home visits to assess the property for any repairs needed at reasonable times and with advance notice
4. provided a list of 12 support agencies for the resident to contact and discuss being an intermediary
5. offered to pay to help clear the property to allow access
6. confirmed it was not a feasible solution to install a chute as it would expect the support to come from agencies helping the resident, or assisting in moving to a more accessible property
7. offered the resident assistance in registering for another property
8. suggested referrals to OTs, GPs, and agreed to find a medical charity to assist with ongoing health conditions
9. asked how it could assist in improving its communication with the resident and suggested tools such as ‘Live Transcribe apps’ or dry-wipe boards to help facilitate communication
The above were all reasonable and appropriate suggestions by the landlord to offer help and support the resident. Furthermore, it is evidence that the landlord gave due regard in terms of its obligations under the Equality Act. It is not however evident that the resident has accepted the help offered. This made it difficult for the landlord to progress with the support requested by the resident and to complete its obligations.
Taking the above into consideration, we find no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of concerns regarding access for gas safety checks.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs, damp and mould, and a pest infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of concerns regarding charges for repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of requests for reasonable adjustments.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. write a letter to the resident which includes an apology for the failures highlighted in this report and any learning taken to prevent a recurrence
2. pay the resident £50 for the impact and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to follow up on the repairs reported
  1. the payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed
3. confirm how it will address the repairs reported by the resident in her complaint
4. provide us with evidence to confirm it has complied with all the orders within the specified timeframe