Accent Housing Limited (202451177)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202451177

Accent Housing Limited

9 October 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:
1. Handling of boiler repairs in 2022.
2. Response to the resident’s claim it had not given her copies of gas safety certificates.
3. Handling of repairs to communal entrance doors.
4. Response to the resident’s reports about the communal bin area and gardens.
5. Response to her concerns about staff conduct.
6. Response to her concerns about it giving her a behaviour warning.
We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and she lives in a 2 bedroom flat in a block. She has told the landlord she is disabled. The resident reported various issues from the start of her tenancy in 2022 including boiler repairs and problems with the communal doors and bin areas.
On 29 November 2023, the resident complained the communal entrance doors had been insecure for 8 months. She also complained the communal bins were overflowing with rubbish.
On 6 December 2023, the landlord issued a behaviour warning. It reminded the resident of her tenancy obligations and asked that she treat its staff and others with respect.
The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response on 8 January 2024. It apologised for not repairing the communal doors sooner and said it had raised an order with its contractor.
The resident escalated her complaint on 6 February 2024. She said the communal doors were still not repaired, the communal bins were overflowing and the bin store lock was broken. She also complained about the behaviour warning, the conduct of her housing officer, the handling of her boiler repairs in 2022 and said she was not given copies of gas safety certificates.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 5 April 2024 in which it:
1. Said it was due to repair the communal doors on 17 April 2024.
2. Gave details of how she should report issues with the communal bin areas and gardens.
3. Said it was sorry its behaviour warning had upset her.
4. Explained how the resident should report repairs.
5. Said it would not investigate her complaint about the boiler repairs because more than 6 months had passed since the matter arose.
6. Said it had given a gas safety certificate at the start of the tenancy and could send her a copy if she wanted it to.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman because she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. She believes the landlord’s treatment of her amounts to bullying, harassment and discrimination. She wants to take the landlord to court and for it to repair the communal doors and keep communal areas in good order.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is set out in the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or a part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme says:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling-failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied the member has not taken action within a reasonable time”.

We will not investigate the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of boiler repairs in 2022. We can see the resident complained on 9 March 2023 and the landlord gave a stage 1 response on 11 July 2023. The landlord upheld the complaint and offered compensation. There is no evidence the resident escalated her complaint at the time. As such, her complaint did not complete the landlord’s procedure and we cannot investigate it.

Scope of investigation

Throughout her correspondence with us and the landlord, the resident alleged the landlord has bullied and harassed her. She alleges the landlord has discriminated against her and has not fulfilled its obligations to her under the Equality Act 2010.
We cannot determine if discrimination has taken place or if the law has been broken as these are legal matters better suited to the courts to decide on. The resident has told us she wants to take the landlord to court. She may wish to contact the Equality Advisory Support Service (EASS) for advice in progressing her concerns about the landlord.
Our role is to consider if the landlord responded fairly, followed its policies and took reasonable actions in the circumstances. We have considered if there is any evidence of the resident being treated unfavourably, or differently to other residents, or differently from how we would expect her to be treated.
The resident brought other matters to the Ombudsman’s attention including:
1. The time taken to repair a leak from her bathroom which resulted in water leaking into the flat below hers.
2. The landlord’s handling of the annual gas safety check in 2025 including it attending her home on 4 September 2025.
3. “Solar panels”. The resident gave no further explanation of this matter.
There is no evidence that the above complaints have completed the landlord’s internal complaint process. As such, we cannot investigate them as part of this case. The resident can complain to the landlord and ask us to investigate if she remains dissatisfied after completing its complaint process.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep a good record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate and accessible records provide an audit trail and enable landlords to identify and resolve service failures.
The evidence provided by the landlord in this case suggests it did not have adequate record keeping practices in place at the time. The lack of complete and accurate records has contributed to our findings and decisions.

Gas safety certificates

In her complaint escalation of 6 February 2024, the resident said the landlord did not give her copies of gas safety certificates from the start of her tenancy.
Under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, occupied rented homes must have a valid gas safety certificate. Landlords should check gas safety at the start of a new tenancy and then do annual checks. They should provide residents with copies of gas safety certificates after each check.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 5 April 2024, the landlord said it had given the resident a gas safety certificate when she signed the tenancy agreement. We cannot confirm this happened from the evidence seen.
The stage 2 response said the landlord could send her copies of gas safety certificates if she wanted it to. In our view, the landlord could have sent copies of the certificates without requiring the resident to ask it to do so.
However, we can see the landlord sent the resident copies of gas certificates it had issued from the start of her tenancy later in April 2024 and again in May 2024.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s claim it had not given her gas safety certificates.

Repairs to communal entrance doors

The resident complained the landlord did not repair the communal doors resulting in the block being unsecure for at least 8 months. She was also concerned it affected fire safety in the block.
From the evidence seen, the resident first reported the locks were broken on the communal doors around 1 December 2022. The landlord’s contractor attended on 6 December 2022 but was not able to resolve the issue. It is not clear if, or when, the doors were repaired. As such, we cannot establish if the landlord dealt with this repair in line with its Repairs Policy.
The resident reported the communal doors again on 17 April 2023. She said the doors could not be opened from inside and had been left propped open. The landlord attended the same day which was in line with its Repairs Policy timescale to attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. But it is not clear what repair, if any, was done or if the doors were secured at this point. The landlord then raised an order to replace the door handles at a later date.
The resident reported the communal doors again on 19 April 2023. She said the doors were stuck closed and she could not leave the block. The landlord sent an emergency order to its contractor at 9:13 a.m. and its contractor attended at 15:09 p.m. which was slightly longer than the 4 hour timescale to make safe in the landlord’s policy.
The contractor released the doors but could not repair the fault. This meant the immediate risk of residents not being able to leave the block was removed but the doors could not be locked until the fault was repaired. Under the circumstances, it was appropriate the landlord resolved the immediate risk while it arranged further repair.
A specialist contractor attended around 21 April 2023 and found the doors needed new handles and latches. The handles and latches were replaced on 17 May 2023 and the locks replaced on 8 June 2023 restoring the security of the block.
This was longer than the 28 day timescale for completing routine repairs in the landlord’s policy. It meant the communal doors had been unlocked for 50 days from 19 April 2023. The landlord told the resident the cause of the delay was the need for specialist locks. It was reasonable it offered £25 compensation.
On 9 November 2023, the landlord raised another order for a missing lock and handle on one of the communal doors. It is not clear from the evidence seen if the resident had reported the problem. But her complaint of 29 November 2023 was partly about broken locks on the communal doors.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 8 January 2024, the landlord acknowledged it had not passed the order on to its specialist contractor when it should have. It said its specialist contractor would replace the lock and handle on 18 January 2024. However, there is no evidence the contractor did so or to explain when, or if, the repair was completed.
In her complaint escalation of 6 February 2024, the resident said she wanted a surveyor to assess the health and safety risks in the block including the communal doors.
On 29 February 2024, the specialist contractor sent residents new keys for the rear communal door and said it was replacing the lock on 7 March 2024. However, we have seen no evidence from the landlord to confirm the locks were changed on that date as intended. The evidence shows the door handle was still missing when its Housing Officer visited on 14 March 2024.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 5 April 2024 said its surveyor had inspected on 25 March 2024 but we have not seen an inspection report. The stage 2 response said the landlord had raised another order to replace the handle on the rear communal door. The work was due to be done on 17 April 2024.
On 9 April 2024, the resident sent the landlord photographs of the communal back door she had taken in April 2023 and April 2024. She said the locks and handles had not been fixed in over a year. The resident had also contacted the local council’s Environmental Health Team about various repair issues. After receiving contact from Environmental Health, the landlord arranged to inspect again.
The landlord attended on 17 April 2024 but did not replace the locks or handle because it did not have the correct parts. It was reasonable it updated the resident at the time.
However, it is unclear from the landlord’s records if, or when, it replaced the handle and lock. On 12 May 2025, the resident told the landlord the communal door was still “broken” and it was the same issue she had been reporting for “years”.
Based on the above, we are unable to conclude that the landlord handled this repair reasonably. This is because:
1. Its records do not give a complete and accurate account of what work the landlord did and when.
2. It has not shown it carried out repairs in line with its Repair Policy timescales.
3. There is no evidence it replaced the lock or handle on the rear communal door since the order it raised on 9 November 2023.

Communal bin area and gardens

In her complaint of 29 November 2023, the resident said the communal bins were overflowing and there was rubbish “everywhere”.
The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for managing communal areas. The resident pays a service charge to the landlord for grounds maintenance and rubbish removal.
The landlord’s Estate Management Policy (effective from September 2021) said it would inspect communal areas at least 3 times a year. It says it will identify and manage health and safety hazards. This includes removing fly tipped rubbish within 15 days and working “proactively” to minimise fly tipping.
The resident reported issues with the bin area on 6 December 2022. The landlord inspected on 23 December 2022 and noted household items had been left in the area. The landlord has not evidenced that it addressed the discarded items or reminded residents they should not fly tip.
The resident referred to nothing having been done in response to reports she had made about rubbish in a complaint she made on 21 April 2023. There is no evidence to explain if the landlord took any action regarding the rubbish at the time.
The resident complained about the bins and rubbish again on 29 November 2023. She called the landlord on 5 December 2023 about various issues including the rubbish. She raised the matter with her Housing Officer later on 5 December 2023 when they called her about a different matter. The Housing Officer explained the local council was responsible for emptying the communal bins. There is no evidence to explain if the landlord took any action regarding her reports.
On 18 December 2023, the landlord carried out a routine inspection under its Estate Management Policy. Its report noted the communal areas and grounds were clean and tidy. It did not note any issues with fly tipping or repairs.
The landlord did not address the matter of the bins or rubbish in its stage 1 complaint response of 8 January 2024. In her complaint escalation of 6 February 2024, the resident raised the matter again. She said the garden was unusable due to the rubbish and the bin store lock was broken. She asked the landlord to install a camera and lighting in the bin area.
In its stage 2 response of 5 April 2024, the landlord said it was not planning to install lighting or cameras. This was a decision it was entitled to make as it could have meant introducing a new service for which all residents would have to pay. The landlord is not obliged to introduce new services.
However, it would have been reasonable for it to have explained its reasons for not installing cameras and lighting. This would have shown the resident it had considered her request.
It was appropriate the landlord said it would continue to address any issues. This was in line with its obligations to manage communal areas under the tenancy agreement. The landlord also told the resident how she should report issues with the bin areas and rubbish in future.
However, the landlord should have acted on the reports the resident had already made through her complaint. We have seen no evidence it did so at the time and this was a failing.
The landlord carried out a routine inspection under its Estate Management Policy on 12 April 2024. Its report said the bin area was secure and tidy, and garden areas tidy. Though the report suggests there may have been some fly tipped items, there is no evidence to explain how the landlord dealt with it.
Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the communal bin area and gardens. This is because:
1. Its records do not show it addressed the resident’s reports; that it investigated, replied to her or reminded residents not to fly tip unwanted items.
2. It has not shown it followed its Estate Management Policy in inspecting the scheme at least 3 times a year.

Staff conduct

In her complaint escalation of 6 February 2024, the resident complained her Housing Officer had not acted on issues she had reported to them, had accused residents of breaking the communal doors and had visited her without making an appointment. She complained the officer’s conduct had caused her alarm and distress.
While the landlord apologised for the distress and “anxiety” the resident felt, its stage 2 response of 5 April 2024 missed opportunities to reassure her. For example, it explained the Housing Officer had visited the resident without making an appointment in May 2023 because they happened to be in the area.
It may have been helpful if the landlord had explained the purpose of the visit was a routine check on progress during the first 12 months of a tenancy. Doing so may have reassured the resident that she was not being treated differently to other residents.
Similarly, the stage 2 response apologised for the resident feeling her Housing Officer had not acted on her reports but missed the opportunity to clarify the Housing Officer’s role and manage the resident’s expectations. For example, it explained how the resident should report repairs herself but did not say if it was the Housing Officer’s role to act on repairs reported to them.
While there were things the landlord could have improved on, we are unable to identify failings that led to detriment for the resident. We have concluded there was no maladministration.

Behaviour warning

In her complaint escalation of 6 February 2024, the resident complained the landlord had issued her with a behaviour warning. She said the landlord should have given her a chance to “defend” herself before giving it.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 December 2023 about her behaviour. It referred to incidents that took place on 27 November and 5 December 2023 where it felt her behaviour towards its staff was unacceptable.
It reminded the resident of her tenancy condition to treat others with respect and said she should treat the letter as a warning that it might take further action if the behaviour continued. The letter invited the resident to make contact if she wanted to discuss the matter.
The landlord told us it had decided to give the warning because of its duty of care to its employees. We understand it has an obligation to protect its staff from behaviour it considers to be unacceptable.
The resident did not read the letter until 6 February 2024 when she escalated her complaint. In its stage 2 complaint response of 5 April 2024, the landlord apologised its warning letter had upset her. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It said it had addressed the behaviour to enable more positive relationships between the resident and its staff.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the behaviour warning.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition.
The resident complained on 29 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged it the following day saying it would give a response within 10 working days. The landlord acknowledged the complaint in line with the requirements of the Code.
The landlord’s records show it extended its response timescale on 13 December 2023. The Code allowed it to extend a response timescale in exceptional circumstances. It is not clear from the evidence seen why it extended the timescale. As such we cannot establish if there were exceptional circumstances that would justify the extension.
It extended its response timescale again 29 December 2023. Again, it is not clear from the evidence seen why the landlord had extended it, but there was no provision in the Code for it to extend the response timescale more than once. As such, its second extension was not in line with the Code.
The Code required the landlord to address all points of the resident’s complaint. Its stage 1 response was not in line with the Code because it did not address the resident’s complaint about the bin area and rubbish.
The resident escalated her complaint on 6 February 2024 and added new issues which had not been part of her initial complaint. The landlord should have logged a new complaint to address the new issues raised. In not doing so, it prevented the resident from having access to both stages of its complaint process.
Given the resident’s comments she was disabled and protected by the Equality Act 2010, the landlord should have considered if she was asking it to make adjustments for her. It has a legal obligation under the Equality Act to consider requests for adjustments and make adjustments if they are reasonable. It could have asked the resident if it was not sure what, if any, adjustments she wanted.
It is not clear why it took the landlord 22 working days (until 7 March 2024) to log the escalation request. The delay meant the landlord gave its stage 2 response 42 working days after the resident had escalated her complaint. As such, it did not meet the 20 working day timescale required by the Code for giving a stage 2 response.
We have explained earlier in this report how the landlord’s stage 2 response did not adequately address some parts of the resident’s complaint. Another example was the response not addressing the resident’s allegation that the Housing Officer had accused residents of damaging the communal doors. This was a failing that meant not all the resident’s concerns were addressed.
However, the landlord’s decision not to investigate the matter of the boiler repairs was in line with the Code which said landlords could exclude complaints about matters that happened over 6 months ago from their complaint policies. The landlord in this case had such an exclusion in its Complaints Policy at the time.
By the time the resident raised the matter of the boiler repairs in her escalation, over 10 months had passed since the landlord had resolved the matter. More than 6 months had passed since it gave a stage 1 response to the resident’s previous complaint about the boiler repairs. Under the circumstances, it was reasonable the landlord chose not to investigate the matter again.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling because it:
1. Extended its response timescale at stage 2 twice and has not shown its extensions were justifiable.
2. Did not give the resident access to both stages of its complaint process for the new issues she raised in her escalation.
3. Took 22 working days to escalate the residents complaint which meant its stage 2 response was late.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of boiler repairs in 2022 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s claim it had not given her copies of gas safety certificates.
2. Response to her concerns about staff conduct.
3. Response to her concerns about it giving her a behaviour warning.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the communal bin area and gardens.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the communal entrance doors.
2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report (by 7 November 2025), the landlord must send us evidence to show it has complied with the following orders:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report. Its apology must be specific to the failures identified and be meaningful and empathetic. It must have due regard to our apologies guidance.
2. Pay the resident £200 compensation made up as follows:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the communal entrance doors.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Make sure the communal doors are opening and closing, latching and locking as they should be. The landlord must send us evidence to show the doors are in proper working order.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report (by 21 November 2025), the landlord must confirm the bin area and gardens are in an acceptable condition. It must send us a report of a scheme inspection done after 1 September 2025. If the report identified issues with the bin area, fly tipping or gardens, the landlord must send us evidence to show how it dealt with them.