Milton Keynes Council (202314473)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314473

Milton Keynes Council

26 September 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 which we have 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 the resident’s reports of:
1. Difficulties accessing the garden due to the lack of maintenance.
2. Difficulties accessing the garden due to issues with his path and threshold step from the property.
3. A hole in the bedroom wall.
4. A broken interior floor tile.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 1-bedroom ground-floor flat. The property is adapted for a disabled person’s use. The landlord, a local council, is aware of health vulnerabilities declared by the resident. This includes a visual impairment.
In September 2025 the resident told us he had a personality disorder. It was unclear if he had previously told the landlord about this.
On 27 July 2023 we wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. We asked it to respond to his complaints. Although the landlord responded to other matters raised by the resident, it did not address those included in this report. We contacted the landlord again on 28 September 2023, 28 November 2023, and 2 January 2024.
On 9 January 2024 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It visited him on the 8 February 2024, and it sent him its stage 2 response on 13 February 2024. The landlord addressed the resident’s complaint points and agreed to provide him with a written schedule for works required. It offered an appointment for 15 February 2024, for which the resident said he would not be available. The landlord continued to record ongoing access difficulties as the resident did not agree to an alternative appointment date.
The resident escalated his complaint on 4 March 2024. He said there had been a lack of communication from the landlord since January and February 2024. We contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 24 April 2024.
On 3 May 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. The landlord repeated its understanding the resident wanted a full schedule of works with specific dates. The landlord explained it required access to the resident’s property to plan the work, which he had not provided. It asked for his availability so it could attend with a contractor to schedule the work.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 response, it sought legal advice to secure access to the resident’s property. The landlord achieved completion of the works to address the resident’s complaints between August to September 2024.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. He said the landlord had indirectly discriminated against him as it had not considered his needs when he moved in.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident says the landlord indirectly discriminated against him. Allegations of discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court of law. This matter therefore falls outside of our expertise. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue his concerns further using equalities legislation. Or he can speak to The Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance.
The resident states the landlord did not consider his needs when he moved into the property in 2009. It is essential residents raise matters with landlords within a reasonable time, normally within 12 months of the matter arising. If they are unhappy with how a landlord responds, they could then progress matters to the appropriate Ombudsman or tribunal service. This did not happen. Therefore, we are unable to encourage the resident to raise this with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), who are responsible for complaints regarding housing allocations.
Within the resident’s correspondence he said he had experienced other repair issues, including a flood. Our role is to investigate how the landlord responded to the resident’s original complaint and its final response on 3 May 2024. We can only consider matters which have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. In the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s more recent concerns.

Difficulties accessing the garden due to the lack of maintenance

The landlord’s tenant handbook states residents are responsible for the repair and upkeep of a property’s garden. This includes cutting back shrubbery and grass. The resident says the landlord agreed to take responsibility for this due to his visual impairment. We have seen no evidence to support his position.
The landlord cleared the resident’s garden as part of its complaint resolution in or around August 2024. It achieved access following support from its legal representatives. However, we have not identified any agreement that it had previously agreed to assist the resident with garden maintenance work. Nor that it would do so again in the future.
Furthermore, the resident’s tenancy agreement makes no reference to such an arrangement. Therefore, without evidence, we are unable to form a view on this matter.
In contact with us the resident says the landlord did not provide him with any information about alternative gardening services. There is no obligation for the landlord to provide this information or service. The resident remains responsible for clearing the garden himself, which may involve identifying and arranging his own gardener.
Based on our findings, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter.

Difficulties accessing the garden due to issues with his path and a threshold step from the property

The landlord’s tenant handbook recognises its responsibility to maintain and repair paths and walkways. It considers these a routine repair which it will complete within 28 days.
When we contacted the landlord in July 2023, we set out the resident’s complaint, including issues with his garden path and step. Given the landlord’s awareness of his visual impairment, it is unclear why it did not arrange to inspect and address these concerns. That said, evidence shows the landlord was managing multiple complaints from the resident at this time. It was also attempting to secure access to the property and rebuild its contractor’s relationship with the resident.
While these issues offer mitigation, there was approximately 196 days between the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s inspection in February 2024. This was not appropriate and not consistent with its repair policy response times.
Evidence shows the landlord repaired the resident’s garden path in August 2024. It also installed an additional threshold step to help his movement between the property and garden. While this was a further delay to complete the work, the landlord continued to face access difficulties which required legal advice. It is therefore reasonable that the delay between February to August 2024 was not within the landlord’s control.
However, our determinations should also recognise the fact that the distress caused to an individual resident is unique to them. Not all residents will experience the same distress in response to the same instance of maladministration. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or because of a vulnerability (‘aggravating factors’). Consideration of any aggravating factors could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
In this case, the landlord had opportunity from July 2023 to respond to the resident’s concerns. Had it done so, it may have improved the resident’s path and step sooner. Given its awareness of his visual impairment, this did not demonstrate the landlord giving due regard to a vulnerable resident’s circumstances.
Therefore, we find service failure and order the landlord to pay £100 compensation. Our order has considered the time, aggravating factors, and the mitigating circumstances.

A hole in the bedroom wall

Prior to us contacting the landlord in July 2023, there is evidence it knew about a small hole in October 2022. An inspection on 11 October 2022 recorded the need to make good this repair, caused during a socket replacement. It is therefore unclear why this remained outstanding.
While the detriment of a hole may be minimal, the landlord did not achieve the repair within its repair timescales. This caused the resident time and trouble asking us for help to progress this matter.
Although the landlord experienced difficulties securing access between February 2024 to September 2024, it does not explain why it failed to monitor or resolve this work from October 2022. This indicates a record keeping failure.
Based on our findings, we find service failure. We order the landlord to pay £50 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble to get this matter resolved.

A broken interior floor tile

Evidence shows the landlord identified broken floor tiles near the resident’s front door during its inspection on 11 October 2022. This work remained outstanding as of 17 February 2023, when the landlord discussed it with its contractor. This demonstrates the landlord failed to achieve its published repair time.
Due to the tiles containing asbestos materials, it was reasonable for the landlord to assess and manage this work in line with the appropriate asbestos removal procedures. However, we have identified no communication with the resident about this repair. Nor any explanation for any delays to plan the work.
The landlord’s property inspection in February 2024 again referred to the outstanding work. While we accept it had experienced access difficulties, it does not explain the lack of any specific communication with the resident regarding its plans to remedy this repair from October 2022.
During contact with the resident on 23 September 2025 he confirmed the broken tile presented no trip hazard. He said it was about the time taken to resolve it.
Based on our findings we find service failure. Considering the time taken, access difficulties, and low detriment we order the landlord to pay £50 compensation. This is consistent with our remedies guide when there has been a loss of confidence in the landlord’s services.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord would acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It would respond within 20 working days at stage 1 and 2 of its complaints process.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
While the landlord’s response timescales did not align with the Code, the Ombudsman accepted corporate complaint timescales for local council landlords at that time. That said, it would have been aware of the other requirements of the Code and expected to have met them.
It is unclear how the resident first informed the landlord of his complaint. However, the evidence shows we contacted the landlord on 4 occasions from 27 July 2023 to request it register his complaint and respond to him. Having received notification from us on 27 July 2023 the landlord did not provide a stage 1 response until 13 February 2024, 140 working days later.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 3 May 2024, 43 days after the resident escalated his complaint. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy.
The evidence shows the landlord was managing multiple complaints from the resident at this time. And it also arranged a nominated person to co-ordinate the resident’s contact, repairs, and complaints. This demonstrated the landlord’s attempts to use its complaints process to rebuild the relationship with him.
The landlord considered it had addressed the matters within this investigation under a separate complaint reference. However, it did not provide responses for the specific complaints raised in July 2023. The landlord’s failure to respond to these matters separately was not consistent with the Code and caused time and trouble to the resident as he tried to progress matters through us.
The landlord’s complaint response explained the actions it would take to put things right. This was appropriate. However, it did not demonstrate any learning. Given the extended time to action the resident’s complaint, it is reasonable to have expected it to explain what steps it would take to prevent similar failings happening again. By not doing so, the landlord did not meet the expectations of the Code.
Based on our findings, we find maladministration and we order the landlord to pay £100 compensation. Communication suffered between the landlord, the contractor, and resident. This caused multiple complaints for the landlord’s complaints team to co-ordinate and resolve, which it did. However, we have had to consider the time taken and our involvement to encourage a response to these complaints.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration within the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of difficulties accessing the garden due to the lack of maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure within the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of difficulties accessing the garden due to issues with his path and a threshold step from the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a hole in the bedroom wall.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken interior floor tile.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident a total of £300 compensation, made up of:
  1. £100 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of difficulties accessing the garden due to issues with his path and a threshold step from the property.
  2. £50 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a hole in the bedroom wall.
  3. £50 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken interior floor tile.
  4. £100 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to assess the suitability of the current nominated person and communication arrangements.
We recommend that the landlord ensures that its health and vulnerability records, and any reasonable adjustments, accurately reflect the current circumstances of the resident’s household.