Mansfield District Council (202126813)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126813

Mansfield District Council

23 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of various repairs.
2. The resident’s reports that its staff and contractors were attending the property without giving notice.
3. The resident’s concerns about staff conduct and a lack of support given to him.
4. The resident’s reports of motorcycles being ridden outside his property.
5. The resident’s concerns about the timing of the electrical safety checks.
6. The resident’s concerns about action taken to access the property for gas servicing.
7. The administration of the resident’s Council Tax account.
8. Data and how it dealt with the resident’s subject access request.
9. The associated complaints.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the local authority landlord since March 2020 and the property is 2–bedroom, semi–detached bungalow. The landlord has confirmed it is aware of the resident’s stated disabilities, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), autism and other conditions.
On 11 July 2024, the resident advised the landlord there were outstanding repairs in his property that had not been resolved since September 2020. On 26 September 2024, he made a stage 1 complaint about various issues, including:
1. Being unable to speak to some members of the landlord’s staff for a number of years as their voicemails were either full or were directed to electronic answering systems.
2. He said he had PTSD because the landlord had not dealt with people riding motorcycles and committing road traffic offences outside his property.
3. The landlord had not recorded his complaints about his bathroom in 2020 and in January 2024.
4. The landlord’s staff had carried out unannounced visits to his property without giving notice.
5. Warning signs had been placed on his front door regarding gas safety when previous gas safety certificates had not expired.
6. He said there were outstanding repairs in the property and the landlord had caused him alarm and distress as he was vulnerable.
The landlord contacted the resident on 27 September 2024 and 22 October 2024 to advise him that it wanted to inspect the property to identify all of the outstanding repairs. The landlord then sent its stage 1 reply on 25 October 2024 in which it stated the following:
1. In response to the resident’s complaint about difficulties in contacting the landlord’s staff, the landlord said all its staff had voicemail, so residents could leave messages.
2. The resident had said that staff should leave details of their location when they were unavailable, however, the landlord said for personal safety reasons its staff were not required to do this.
3. The issues regarding the motorcycles fell under the jurisdiction of the police and therefore he should ring 101 to report his concerns.
4. The landlord had written to the resident on 22 October 2024 with some suggested dates to inspect the property for repairs.
5. The landlord was available on 7 November 2024 to carry out an inspection and asked the resident to confirm whether this date was suitable.
6. The landlord had a legal duty to carry out a gas safety check every 12 months.
7. It had introduced contact restrictions in relation to the resident due to the volume of contact.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 October 2024 to ask for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 because he said:
1. The landlord had not acknowledged his stage 1 complaint and had not responded within 10 working days.
2. He believed the landlord should be taking action regarding the motorcycles as they were being ridden on council owned land.
3. He wanted the annual electrical checks to be done within a reasonable timeframe and not 6 months before they were due.
4. He said the landlord’s staff had carried out over 20 unannounced visits to the property.
5. He questioned why he had to pay Council Tax due to his diagnoses.
6. He said the landlord should not be attending his property while the case was with us.
7. He said that one of the landlord’s staff was ‘gatekeeping’ and preventing him from accessing other staff.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 21 November 2024 in which it included the following:
1. It apologised for not acknowledging the stage 1 complaint nor responding within 10 working days.
2. It had agreed to inspect the property on 22 November 2024 to identify the outstanding repairs.
3. It was unable to ask its Neighbourhood Wardens to deal with the motorcycle problem as this was a matter for the police.
4. The landlord asked the resident to provide examples of unannounced visits so it could investigate. It said that operatives would sometimes visit without notice if their schedules permitted but the repairs would only proceed if convenient for the resident.
5. In terms of the electrical safety checks, the contractor would contact residents to agree a mutually convenient appointment.
6. The landlord asked the resident to share examples where he believed its staff had not provided adequate support.
7. The landlord signposted the resident to its website regarding his Council Tax queries.
8. The resident had referred to a repair visit in June 2024 for which he said he had not received notice. However, the landlord said it had written to him on 14 June 2024 to advise him of the visit that was scheduled for 17 June 2024.
9. The landlord explained that its officers had voicemail so residents could leave messages. However, it understood the frustration when voicemail boxes were full.

Events after the landlord’s complaints process

The landlord inspected the property on 22 November 2024. The contractor then attended the property on 4 December 2024 and agreed to start the work to the bathroom on 9 December 2024. The landlord’s records show that some of the works were completed before the Christmas period.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 January 2025 and offered him compensation of £8,900 to settle his complaints. The landlord said the sum included a Discretionary Housing Payment of £1,386 to clear his rent arrears.
The resident contacted us on 27 January 2025 and said he had been unhappy with the condition of the property when he had moved in and had concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff.
The landlord advised us on 14 May 2025 that the resident had refused access on 23 April and 7 May 2025 for it to carry out the outstanding works to the bathroom and to complete the electrical installation condition report (EICR). The landlord also advised us that the resident had refused its offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the following parts of the resident’s complaint are outside of our jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the administration of the resident’s Council Tax account.
2. The landlord’s handling of data and how it dealt with the resident’s subject access request.
Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion… fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”. In this case, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) considers complaints about Council Tax and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) considers complaints about the Data Protection Act, data handling and subject access requests.

Scope of investigation

The resident said in his stage 1 complaint dated 26 September 2024 that he had complained to the landlord about his bathroom in 2020. He also advised us on 27 January 2025 that he had been unhappy with the condition of the property in 2020 when he had moved in. The landlord’s records show that it logged formal complaints for the resident on 25 November 2022, 26 September 2024, 22 October 2024 and 28 November 2024.
We have reviewed the availability and reliability of evidence and consider it fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the events from 2024. Although the landlord logged a complaint in 2022, the passage of time makes it more difficult to carry out a thorough investigation and make informed decisions as older evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left the organisation. Reference to the events that occurred prior to 2024 has been made to provide context.
We have received information showing events and correspondence that occurred after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 21 November 2024. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable for our investigation to focus on the issues raised by the resident during the complaint process and addressed by the landlord in its final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.
The resident advised the landlord in his stage 1 complaint that the motorcycles constantly being ridden past his property had caused him to suffer from PTSD. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this option.
In his stage 1 complaint dated 26 September 2024, the resident stated that the landlord had breached various parts of the Equality Act 2010 and had committed disability discrimination. He also advised the landlord on 26 November 2024 that it had failed to comply with his reasonable adjustments.
We cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal matter which is better suited to the courts to decide. Similarly, we are unable to provide a judgement on whether the adjustments requested by the resident were ‘reasonable’ as defined in the Equality Act 2010. The term ‘reasonable adjustment’ is a legal term and is dependent on a range of factors, including what is practical and affordable for the landlord. The Equality Advisory and Support Service can provide guidance and advice on these types of concerns. We can, however, consider whether the landlord gave due regard to the resident’s requests for adjustments to be made and responded fairly and appropriately to the concerns raised by him.
Part of the resident’s complaint regarding the landlord’s voicemail system was that it did not give the name of the person he was ringing. He said he was therefore unwilling to leave messages because to do so, in his view, would be a breach of the Data Protection Act and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). We have not investigated this aspect of the resident’s complaint because, as stated earlier, the ICO considers complaints about the Data Protection Act and the General Data Protection Regulation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy states that responsive repairs are assigned one of the following categories depending on their urgency:
1. Emergency repairs are completed within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs are completed within 72 hours.
3. Routine repairs are completed within 20 working days.
4. Batched repairs are completed within a 15-week programme.
The landlord raised a routine order on 11 January 2024 to carry out various repairs to the bathroom, including sealing around the bath and replacing missing tiles. An appointment was booked for 1 February 2024, which was an appropriate timescale as the job had been raised on a routine (20 working day) priority. The landlord’s records show that the job was cancelled as the contractor could not obtain access to the property. The appointment was rebooked for 26 February 2024 and again the landlord’s records show there was no access.
The resident sent a message to us on 11 May 2024 saying that his bathroom had been uninhabitable for the past 4 years. The landlord made a third appointment for 11 June 2024 to carry out repairs to the bathroom and again there was no access. The landlord therefore cancelled the job on its system. The landlord’s notes state that the resident phoned on 11 June 2024 to say he was refusing access to the contractor until we had investigated his complaint.
The evidence seen shows that between January and June 2024, the landlord made reasonable efforts to carry out repairs to the bathroom. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that residents must provide access for repairs at the appointed time. It adds that it will make 3 attempts to access the property, after which it will cancel the repair. As the landlord had made 3 attempts to access the property and the resident has specifically said he would not give access, it was reasonable for the landlord to cancel the repair job.
The landlord raised an order on 13 June 2024 to repair a faulty light switch in the bedroom. An appointment was booked for 17 June 2024. However, the job was cancelled as the landlord’s contractor was unable to obtain access. As the job had been raised on an urgent priority, the contractor had attempted to access the property within a reasonable timescale.
In his stage 1 complaint dated 26 September 2024, the resident said there were various outstanding repairs in the property, including repairs to the bathroom which he said he had reported in 2020. The landlord phoned the resident on 27 September 2024 and said it wanted to arrange an appointment to inspect the property for any potential repairs. However, the landlord’s contact log states that the resident refused access for the inspection. As the resident had reported various outstanding repairs, it was reasonable for the landlord to propose an inspection of the property to identify and diagnose the repairs. This would allow the landlord to produce a schedule of repairs.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 October 2024 and gave him various suggested dates for an inspection. It said that if none of the dates were suitable, he could suggest an alternative date. The landlord said that its contractor would also attend the inspection and they would look at the whole house to identify any repairs. It said it would then carry out the repairs and would carry out some extra works as a goodwill gesture. The landlord asked the resident to respond.
The resident phoned the landlord on the same day (22 October 2024) and said he was unhappy with the email he had just received because it did not include a contact number. The landlord repeated in its stage 1 reply dated 25 October 2024 that it wanted to inspect the property. It said it had allocated 7 November 2024 for the inspection and asked the resident to confirm whether this date was suitable.
The evidence shows that after receiving the resident’s complaint on 26 September 2024, the landlord made reasonable efforts to inspect the property to identify any outstanding repairs. The landlord’s records show that by 5 November 2024 the resident had not yet confirmed the appointment so it emailed the resident on this date and asked him to respond regarding the proposed inspection. As the resident had not responded to the landlord’s proposal to inspect the property on 7 November 2024, it was reasonable for the landlord to send the resident a reminder 2 days before the suggested date.
It is unclear from the evidence seen whether the resident responded to the landlord’s email dated 5 November 2024. However, the landlord wrote to the resident on 6 November 2024 and confirmed it would visit the property on 12 November 2024. The landlord therefore attended on this date and agreed a ‘road map’ to complete the required repairs. The landlord agreed that one of its staff would be a sole point of contact for the resident and would contact him to agree a further appointment to attend with contactors to take a ‘whole house’ approach in identifying the repairs.
Having visited the property, it was reasonable that the landlord had reassured the resident it would take a ‘whole house’ approach in identifying the outstanding repairs and would re-attend with a contractor. This would enable the landlord to produce a comprehensive list of repairs and allow the contractor to see first–hand the work that was needed.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 November 2024 and confirmed an appointment had been made with him to attend on 22 November 2024 with a contractor. The landlord confirmed it would be looking at the whole of the property. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 21 November 2024 and confirmed the appointment for 22 November 2024. It was reasonable that the landlord had agreed an appointment with the resident to inspect the property.
Overall, we have found that the landlord’s handling of repairs during 2024 was reasonable because:
1. The landlord booked appointments to carry out repairs to the bathroom in February and June 2024 but the jobs were cancelled because the landlord was unable to obtain access.
2. The landlord booked an appointment in June 2024 to repair a faulty light switch in the bedroom but this was cancelled due to no access.
3. The landlord attempted to inspect the property in September and October 2024 to identify all outstanding repairs and offered to carry out extra works as a goodwill gesture.
4. The landlord attended the property on 12 November 2024 and agreed a way forward to completing the outstanding repairs, including providing the resident with a sole point of contact in relation to the repairs.
5. At the time of its stage 2 reply on 21 November 2024, the landlord had booked an appointment with the resident to attend the property on 22 November 2024 with a contractor.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that its staff and contractors were attending the property without giving notice

The resident reported in his stage 1 and 2 complaints that the landlord’s staff and contractors had attended his property several times unannounced without giving the required 24-hour notice. He mentioned this had happened 20 times and said it was a breach of the tenancy conditions.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 reply that its staff had to give 24 hours’ notice. It added that occasionally, its operatives may make unannounced visits when schedules permit, but repairs proceed only if convenient for the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm its policy of giving at least 24 hours’ notice before calling on a resident. However, the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states: “Where access is required into a customer’s home, we will contact them prior to our visit and agree a mutually convenient appointment”. The practice of operatives “occasionally” attending without an appointment was therefore contrary to its policy and was inappropriate, particularly given the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The resident’s emails to the landlord and to us show that he considered any unannounced visits to be contrary to the tenancy agreement and show he had concerns about such visits.
The landlord said in its stage 2 reply that it would investigate the matter further if the resident provided example of the visits. As the resident had not been specific about which staff had visited unannounced, it was reasonable for the landlord to ask for examples so it could investigate whether any of its own staff had carried out unannounced visits.
Having considered the landlord’s response, we have found there was service failure because:
1. The landlord did not adequately acknowledge the level of concern caused to the resident by unannounced visits, despite his vulnerabilities.
2. The landlord did not suggest any action it would take to reduce the likelihood of unannounced visits by operatives in the future.
We have ordered the landlord to write to the resident outlining steps it will take to reduce the likelihood of unannounced visits to the resident in the future. We have also ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £50 to put things right. The sum is within the range of sums recommended in our Remedies Guidance for service failures and recognises the frustration experienced by the resident because the landlord did not adequately acknowledge his concerns about unannounced visits.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct and lack of support given to him

The landlord’s contact log shows that the resident phoned the landlord’s contact centre 3 times on 11 May 2024 and 4 times on 11 July 2024. He stated that he had tried to ring various officers and had been directed to the landlord’s voicemail system as the officers were unavailable.
In his stage 1 complaint on 26 September 2024, the resident gave the names of several of the landlord’s staff who he said he had been unable to speak to by telephone for a number of years. He said the staff did not answer their phones, individual voicemail boxes were full or calls went straight to the landlord’s automatic voicemail system which did not give the name of the person he was trying to contact.
In its stage 1 reply dated 25 October 2024, the landlord confirmed that all of its staff had voicemail facilities so that messages could be left for them. The landlord said it had reviewed one of the resident’s voicemail messages on which he had not left his name or contact details. This had therefore made it difficult for the relevant manager to respond. It was reasonable for the landlord to point out that all of its staff had voicemail facilities enabling the resident to leave a message for the person he was ringing. It was also reasonable for the landlord to point out the difficulties in responding to any anonymous phone messages.
The landlord said in its stage 1 reply that the resident had requested officers to leave details of their whereabouts when they were unavailable to take calls. The landlord said its staff were not required to disclose their location for personal safety reasons. The landlord repeated in its stage 2 reply that its officers were not required to disclose their location when unavailable to take calls. It was reasonable that the landlord had advised the resident in clear terms that its staff were not required to disclose details of their whereabouts when unavailable to take calls. Furthermore, it was reasonable that it had explained the reason for its policy, which it said was for safety reasons.
The resident phoned the landlord’s contact centre on 14 October 2024 and spoke to one of the Contact Centre Officers. The officer’s notes state that the resident asked to speak to various staff members. According to the notes, the officer asked the resident for information about his enquiry, to which the resident responded by saying the officer was “playing gate keeper”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 October 2024 and reported that the officer had been acting as a ‘gatekeeper’ and preventing direct access to other staff members. He said that the officer’s behaviour towards him had been unacceptable. The landlord responded to this point in its stage 2 reply on 21 November 2024 and said it was satisfied that the officer in question had adhered to the landlord’s policies and had not engaged in ‘gatekeeping’.
Having reviewed the notes of the phone call on 14 October 2024, our view is that it was reasonable for the Contact Centre Officer to ask the resident about the nature of his enquiry. This would help the officer understand who was best placed to assist the resident and enable him to direct the resident’s enquiry to the most appropriate person. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident in its stage 2 reply that the officer had not engaged in gatekeeping.
As part of his stage 2 complaint, the resident said he was unhappy that the landlord had written to him asking to inspect the property while his complaint was with us. He said we would be arranging to inspect the condition of the property. The landlord responded to this point in its stage 2 reply and said it had to continue meeting its statutory duties in relation to repairs and maintenance, even though the resident had referred the matter to us.
The landlord’s response was reasonable because although our role is to resolve disputes involving social landlords and their residents, landlords continue to be responsible for managing and maintaining their properties in line with their legal responsibilities and their policies.
The resident mentioned in his stage 2 complaint that in his view the landlord had not been supportive. The landlord responded to this point in its stage 2 reply and said it was committed to supporting all of its residents, particularly those with specific needs. It asked the resident to share any examples where he felt the support had been lacking. As the resident had not been specific in his complaint about the lack of support, it was reasonable for the landlord to request examples. This would enable it to conduct a more targeted investigation into the resident’s concerns.
During our investigation, we have noted examples where the landlord has offered support to the resident. For example, by stating in its stage 1 reply that it would provide the resident with a single point of contact in its contact centre. It also confirmed with the resident during an inspection on 12 November 2024 that one of its managers would be the resident’s point of contact for repairs and would oversee the outstanding works. Finally, despite the landlord’s reports of various problems in accessing the property, it contacted the resident on different occasions during September and October 2024 to arrange an inspection of the property.
In summary, we have not found any service failings in relation to the landlord’s response to the concerns raised by the resident about staff conduct and lack of support because:
1. The landlord explained that all of its staff had voicemail facilities so that residents could leave messages for them.
2. The landlord explained the reason why its staff were not required to disclose their whereabouts when they were unavailable to take calls.
3. It was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that its Contact Centre Officer had not acted as a gatekeeper when the resident had phoned the contact centre.
4. It was reasonable for the landlord to try to inspect the property while his complaint was with us.
5. We found examples of where the landlord had offered support to the resident and, based on the evidence seen, we did not find any instances where there had been a lack of support.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of motorcycles being ridden outside his property

In his stage 1 complaint, the resident said that motorcyclists were committing road traffic offences outside his property. For example, he referred to the riders not wearing helmets. The landlord’s records state that the motorcycles were being ridden mainly on the highway and on public footpaths.
The landlord advised the resident in its stage 1 reply dated 25 October 2024 that the reported problem came under the jurisdiction of the police and he should therefore report the matter to them. The landlord added in its stage 2 reply dated 21 November 2024 that its Neighbourhood Wardens were not equipped to handle such matters and therefore could not patrol the resident’s street in order to address the matter.
As the resident had advised the landlord that the motorcyclists were engaged in criminal behaviour and committing road traffic offences, it was reasonable for the landlord to direct him to contact the police. The police are responsible for investigating crimes, such as road traffic offences and the landlord has no powers to investigate or prosecute people for criminal acts. We have therefore found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of motorcycles being ridden outside his property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the timing of the electrical safety checks

The landlord’s Electrical Safety Policy states that it will seek to carry out an EICR within 5 years of the previous one. The policy also states that all domestic electrical installations are to be inspected and tested prior to the start of a new tenancy.
The landlord’s records show that the EICR was last carried out at the property on 10 March 2020 just prior to the start of the resident’s tenancy. The landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident on 20 June 2024 to explain that it had been appointed by the landlord to carry out the electrical periodic safety inspection. The contractor asked the resident to ring its office or send an email to arrange an appointment for the inspection. As part of the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 28 October 2024, he advised the landlord he was unhappy that the contractor had attempted to request an appointment to carry out the EICR more than 6 months before it was due in March 2025.
As the 5-yearly EICR was due by 10 March 2025, the contractor had written to the resident over 8 months before the due date. In our view, the timing of the letter was reasonable because:
1. The information provided to us by the landlord states that the process is started early to ensure it has sufficient time to access the property within 3 visits and, if necessary, refer the case to its Legal team before the previous EICR expires.
2. The contractor’s letter dated 20 June 2024 explained that the inspection was required to ensure the resident’s safety and it gave the resident flexibility to book a convenient appointment.
3. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that where access is required into a resident’s home, it will contact them to make a mutually convenient appointment. The contractor had therefore acted in accordance with the landlord’s policy by asking the resident to agree an appointment date.
4. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 gives landlords an implied right to inspect the property at reasonable times provided at least 24 hours’ notice in writing has been given by the landlord. The landlord had therefore complied with this requirement.
Given the importance of ensuring residents remain safe in their home, our view is that it was reasonable for the landlord to start the process of gaining access to the property when it did. We have therefore found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the timing of the electrical checks.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about action taken to access the property for gas servicing

Under regulation 36 of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 (GSIUR), landlords are required to carry out annual safety checks on gas appliances and flues (and ensure a record is kept and issued, or in certain cases, displayed to tenants) and carry out ongoing maintenance.
The Approved Code of Practice and Guidance – The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 states that where the property remains tenanted it is an offence to have no current gas safety check record in place.
The landlord’s website states that it conducts annual gas safety checks and repairs on all gas fires and boilers it supplies, with a goal to complete these checks every 9 months to avoid delays.
The landlord’s Gas Safety Policy states that the processes for accessing properties will start 90 days before the gas servicing is due in order to ensure a suitable amount of time is given during the access process.
The resident stated in his stage 1 complaint that the landlord had placed warning signs on his front door regarding the gas safety check, when the previous gas safety certificate had not expired. He said that the landlord had started contacting him in January 2024 regarding the gas safety check when the certificate was valid until 13 June 2024.
The landlord stated in its stage 1 reply that it had a legal duty to carry out gas safety checks every 12 months. It reassured the resident that its communication was intended solely to ensure his safety and compliance with the regulations. The resident did not raise the issue in his stage 2 complaint and therefore the landlord did not address the matter further in its stage 2 reply.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that the previous gas safety check was carried out on 13 June 2023. Therefore, based on the landlord’s stated aim of carrying out gas safety checks every 9 months, the next safety check had been due in March 2024. As the landlord’s Gas Safety Policy states that it starts the access process 90 days before the gas safety check is due, it was reasonable that it had started the process in January 2024.
We understand that due to the potential risks posed by gas appliances that have not been serviced, the landlord’s priority was to allow sufficient time to obtain access to the property. However, we equally understand the resident’s frustration about being written to in January 2024 when he was aware that the previous safety check had been carried out only 6 months earlier in June 2023. It was therefore a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it did not use the complaints process to explain fully why it had started the process in January 2024. Consequently, we have recommended that it writes to the resident to explain its gas safety process, including the timescales involved and the reasons for these timescales.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1, it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and send its full response within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. The timescale may be extended by up to a further 10 working days, in which case the landlord will explain the reason to the resident.
At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint at the point of escalation and will reply within 20 working days. If the landlord needs longer than this, it will contact the resident to explain the reason and advise them of when they can expect to receive a full reply.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 September 2024 and said he wanted to make a formal complaint. The landlord’s system sent an automated update to the resident on 27 September 2024 confirming the change of status of his complaint. However, the landlord did not write to the resident to acknowledge receipt of his complaint and to reassure him that the complaint would be investigated. This was inappropriate as the landlord’s Complaints Policy states that it will write to residents within 5 working days to acknowledge their complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 25 October 2024, which was 21 working days after the resident had submitted his complaint. During this period the landlord had contacted the resident to request access to inspect the property, however, it had not been able to agree an appointment with the resident. The evidence therefore shows that there was some engagement with the resident while his complaint was outstanding. Nevertheless, the time taken for the landlord to reply to the complaint was inappropriate as it took longer than the 10–working day timescale in its Complaint Policy and the landlord did not write to the resident to say it needed an extension of time.
The resident stated in his stage 1 complaint that he had previously submitted complaints in January 2024. However, the landlord’s computer system shows that it had only recorded complaints for the resident on 25 November 2022, 26 September 2024, 22 October 2024 and 28 November 2024. Its repairs records show that it did, however, raise an order on 11 January 2024 to carry out various works to the bathroom. We have not seen any information relating to the complaints referred to by the resident. Therefore, in the absence of any further details, we have not been able to investigate the complaints the resident said he made in January 2024.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 October 2024 and asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2. He provided further details to support his stage 2 complaint on 28 October 2024. The resident included as part of his stage 2 complaint his dissatisfaction that the landlord had not acknowledged his stage 1 complaint nor responded within 10 working days. The landlord’s failings in handling the stage 1 complaint had therefore involved the resident in further time, trouble and inconvenience in having to raise the issues in his stage 2 complaint.
We have not seen any evidence that the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint, which was inappropriate as it was not in line with its policy.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 21 November 2024, which was 19 working days after it was advised by the resident on 25 October 2024 that he wanted to escalate his complaint. The landlord had therefore responded to the stage 2 complaint within the 20-working day timescale stipulated in its Complaint Policy, which was appropriate.
The landlord accepted in its stage 2 reply that it had not acknowledged the stage 1 complaint and had not responded within its 10-working day timescale. It apologised for these failings and said they were due to an oversight and due to the complexity of the complaint.
Although the landlord apologised for its complaint handling failings, it did not offer compensation at this stage to put things right. However, it did subsequently make a substantial offer of compensation consisting of £7,514 (plus a £1,386 Discretionary Housing Payment to clear the resident’s rent arrears). The offer was made on 17 January 2025, which was about 2 months after its stage 2 reply and the landlord said its offer included a sum of £500 for its complaints handling.
It is unusual for us to make a finding of ‘reasonable redress’ for offers of compensation made outside of the landlord’s internal complaint process. However, on this occasion, we consider the landlord made an offer of compensation that put things right because:
1. The landlord acted fairly by using its stage 2 reply to accept and apologise for its failings at stage 1 of the process.
2. The evidence shows that shortly after sending the stage 2 reply, the landlord had requested its Legal team to calculate a reasonable offer of compensation for the resident.
3. The landlord’s offer was made prior to us formally accepting the complaint for investigation on 20 March 2025.
4. The amount offered was within the range of sums recommended in our Remedies Guidance for findings of ‘maladministration’ due to failures that adversely affected the resident.
For these reasons and taking all the circumstances of the case into account, we have found that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress which put things right in relation to the complaint handling failings we identified.

Determination

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 of various repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports that its staff and contractors were attending the property without giving notice.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct and lack of support given to him.
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 of motorcycles being ridden outside his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the timing of the electrical safety checks.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about action taken to access the property for gas servicing.
In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the administration of the resident’s Council Tax account is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of data and how it dealt with the resident’s subject access request is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to provide evidence that it has:
1. Written to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Paid the resident £50 compensation for its response to his reports that staff and contractors were attending the property without giving notice.
3. Written to the resident outlining steps it will take to reduce the likelihood of unannounced visits to the property in the future.

Recommendations

It is recommended that:
1. The landlord reoffers the resident the £500 it offered in January 2025 for complaints handling if this has not already been paid. (Our finding of reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the basis that this compensation is re-offered).
2. The landlord writes to the resident to explain its gas safety process, including the timescales involved and the reasons for these timescales.