Gateway Housing Association Limited (202310470)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310470

Gateway Housing Association Limited

10 June 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 concerns about the landlord’s management of her personal data and the housing development.
2. the resident’s reports of a leak.
3. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared owner. Her lease began on 18 December 2007, and the property is a 2-bedroom flat. The property is owned by L&Q (the freeholder). The freeholder leases the housing development to the landlord. The landlord subleases the property to the resident.
On 28 April 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that there was a damp patch on her bedroom ceiling, and she was concerned there was a leak. The landlord contacted the freeholder to report this on the same day and again a week later on 2 May 2023. It did not receive a response, so it chased the freeholder on 13, 19, 20, and 23 June 2023.
The freeholder surveyed the roof, but it is unclear what the outcome of the survey was. However, it is noted that it also arranged for a roofing company to assess the work required on 22 July 2023. It is unclear what the scope of the roofing works was following this appointment.
On 11 August 2023 the landlord met with the freeholder. The freeholder said that the original roofing contractor could not carry out the work, so it had to find an alternative contractor. It also explained that scaffolding was required and that it had instructed a company to erect this.
The resident made a complaint on 16 August 2023. Within this, she expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the leak from the roof, the management of the development and of her personal data.
On 31 August 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said:
1. it had tried to contact the resident to discuss her complaint but had been unsuccessful. This meant it was unable to address the resident’s concerns about “mismanagement” of the development and the personal data aspect of her complaint.
2. it set out a chronology of events that had occurred before its response.
3. it explained the freeholder was responsible for inspecting and carrying out roof repairs. It recognised the repair ought to have been dealt with sooner, and the freeholder had offered the resident a personal apology.
4. it had chased the freeholder promptly to progress the repair. It did not feel that it could have “done any more to speed up the repair”.
5. following the complaint, it would meet with the freeholder on a cyclical basis to discuss management issues, so they could be resolved more quickly. And it would be carrying out joint scheme inspections more frequently to improve communication.
The resident escalated her complaint on 1 September 2023 because:
1. the repairs to the roof were outstanding, and she was dissatisfied with how long it was taking for this to be completed.
2. she did not know which contractor would be erecting the scaffolding, which would be carrying out the repair, or when.
On 11 September 2023 the landlord visited the building and confirmed the scaffolding had been erected. On 13 September 2023, the landlord liaised with the freeholder to discuss the progress of the repairs. As a result, the freeholder arranged for its building surveyor to attend to review the progress of the work. It is unclear when this happened.
The freeholder’s operative found that the scaffolding had been erected to investigate a separate and unrelated issue with the roof affecting a communal area of the building. The surveyor then chased the roofing contractor and confirmed an investigation was carried out and that there were no visible issues with the roof itself. The surveyor subsequently confirmed the leak had dried out. However, they had arranged for the roofing company to reattend to reassure the resident. The roofing company also found “no issues” with the roof.
On 22 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response, which:
1. set out a chronology of events that had happened throughout the complaints process.
2. explained that after its investigations, the freeholder found no issues with the roof. And although it could not explain the cause of the leak, the freeholder had assured it that they would reattend to carry out a dye test to trace any access points if the leak returned.
3. said that it was not the freeholder and could not carry out repairs to the roof itself. But offered a gesture of goodwill to repaint and redecorate the ceiling on 29 September 2023.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 18 March 2024 because she was dissatisfied with:
1. the landlord’s handling of the repairs and its communication about this.
2. the time it took the landlord to acknowledge that a repair was required.
3. the landlord and freeholder processes for repairs.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

When the resident initially complained to the landlord, she expressed concern about the way the landlord had handled her personal data and the management of the housing development. The landlord took reasonable steps to contact the resident to seek clarity over the nature of her concerns. However, it was unsuccessful when contacting the resident. The resident did not mention these concerns when escalating her complaint to stage 2.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: 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 that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”

It is unclear from the evidence what the resident’s specific concerns were in relation to these matters. The landlord appropriately sought clarification from the resident, which was in accordance with our Complaint Handling Code. However, as it was unable gain clarity, it was unable to investigate the resident’s concerns and the landlord appropriately explained this in its formal responses. We are therefore satisfied that there was no complaint handling failure by the landlord in respect of these matters, and they are outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
If the resident remains concerned with these issues, she is able to make a new complaint to the landlord. After which, if she remains dissatisfied, she may refer her concerns about the management of the housing development to us for investigation. In relation to the handling of her personal data, the resident may wish to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office, as it would be best placed to deal with such concerns.

Scope of the investigation

The resident’s occupancy agreement is with the landlord. She does not have a contractual relationship with the freeholder, who leases the property to the landlord. While the freeholder is a member of our Scheme, our remit is confined to assessing the actions of the landlord. This is because the resident’s occupancy agreement exists as between her and the landlord, and we are concerned with assessing whether the landlord has complied with its duties and obligations under that occupancy agreement. It follows that we cannot compel the freeholder to take any action in relation to this complaint or the resident’s concerns.
The freeholder is obliged to ensure that it complies with the responsibilities as set out in the lease agreement with the landlord, which includes repairing the roof. If there is a problem with the roof, it is for the landlord to report the matter to the freeholder so that it can carry out any necessary investigations and repairs. When assessing the resident’s complaint, we have considered whether the landlord has followed the rules and responsibilities in its lease agreement with the resident. We will also consider if the landlord acted fairly when it responded to the resident’s concerns about the freeholder.

Response to the leak

The lease between the landlord and the freeholder sets out that the freeholder is responsible for repairs to the building’s structure, including the roof. However, this does not negate the landlord’s responsibility towards the repair. Where the resident cannot deal directly with the freeholder about repairs because of the absence of a legal relationship, we would expect the landlord to refer, monitor and act reasonably to try to progress repairs required to be performed by the freeholder.
On 28 April 2023 the resident raised concerns with the landlord about a leak affecting her bedroom ceiling that she believed was coming from the roof. There is evidence that the landlord appropriately referred this matter to the freeholder the same day. The landlord also appropriately chased the report on 2 more occasions. There is no evidence that the freeholder responded.
During May 2023 the resident said she had not had any contact from the freeholder. The landlord escalated the matter to the freeholder’s senior management and explained that urgent action was required. It explained this to the resident and that it had not received a response. This was reasonable because it evidenced the landlord was seeking to escalate and progress the repair with the freeholder.
A few days later, it told the resident that the freeholder was aware of its report and was waiting for a surveyor to make an appointment to inspect the property. The landlord has not provided contemporaneous evidence of its communications with the freeholder about this. It is unclear if this was due to a failure to record this correspondence or a failure to share it with us. In any event, the landlord missed an opportunity to demonstrate that it was communicating with the freeholder at this time.
During June 2023 the resident repeatedly contacted the landlord to explain that she had not heard anything from the freeholder. She also asked what the process was to escalate and resolve the issue. The landlord explained that the freeholder was responsible for the repair and that it had escalated the matter to the freeholder’s senior management. It also empathised with the resident and said it “appreciated this was not a helpful service.”
We understand this caused frustration to the resident because she felt that the repair was not progressing. However, the landlord acted reasonably when it explained who was responsible for the repair. The landlord showed that it was sympathetic to the resident’s frustrations, and there was evidence that it was trying to progress the repair with senior management. Therefore, we consider it acted reasonably, and the freeholder’s lack of action was not within its control.
The resident explained towards the end of June 2023 that the weather had been rainy, and she thought the roof over the bedroom was in “danger”. When the landlord responded, it said the freeholder had tried to survey the property the same day as this report, but the resident was not in. However, it was aware she had rescheduled the appointment for the following week. It said it would check in with the resident following the visit.
The landlord did not provide evidence of its communications with the freeholder during this time. It is unclear if this was because it failed to record its communications or it failed to share them with us. Due to the lack of evidence, we could not be certain whether it took steps to appropriately engage with the resident and the freeholder about the details of the appointment. We would have expected the landlord to have been aware of the details of the appointment before it went ahead, and if necessary, to have coordinated access arrangements. That it did not meant we could not be satisfied that it acted reasonably in the circumstances. This was a missed opportunity to demonstrate it was taking steps to mitigate any delays to the inspection.
The resident later raised concerns with the landlord that the freeholder had attended the rescheduled appointment without prior notice and without the equipment to access the loft of the roof. There is evidence to suggest the resident was aware the appointment had been rescheduled to the following week, but without a time slot.
There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the freeholder or the resident to confirm the time of the appointment. Nor that it followed up with either party about how the appointment had gone. It would have been reasonable for it to have tried to coordinate the repair with both parties given the previous issues with gaining access. And to have contacted the freeholder after the appointment to ascertain what had happened, why, and to have relayed its findings to the resident. That it did not was a failure to raise the resident’s concern to the freeholder’s attention. In turn, this was a missed opportunity to engage meaningfully with the resident to try to address her concerns.
On 3 July 2023 there is evidence that the freeholder acknowledged the report of the leak in an email chain between all three parties. The freeholder’s surveyor attended on 4 July 2023, and, in the resident’s words, they found “the wet patch on [the] ceiling [was] mostly dry”. She said the surveyor had mentioned the landlord was aware of wider issues with the roof. As such, she was upset that no penetrative investigations had been made to establish the cause of the leak. She asked that roofers be prioritised to attend.
There is no evidence of what the freeholder found during its survey on 4 July 2023 or any advice it gave to the resident. Nor is there evidence of the landlord requesting an update about its findings. This was a failure to take steps to understand the freeholder’s conclusions about the urgency of the repair. As such, this would have impacted its ability to address the resident’s concerns about the safety of the roof. This would have caused the resident worry because she already felt the roof was “dangerous”.
There is evidence that shortly after this the landlord intended to arrange a meeting with the freeholder to address the service failures. This would have been reasonable in the circumstances. However, there is no evidence that this occurred. It is unclear if this is because it did not happen, the freeholder did not respond or because the landlord failed to record its communications with the freeholder about this. As such, we could not be satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably to raise the resident’s concerns with the freeholder after the surveyor’s visit. This was a missed opportunity to demonstrate it was taking action to try and address the issues the resident was experiencing with the freeholder.
The landlord did contact the freeholder 10 calendar days after the resident’s report and asked that they “give the matter the urgency required and priority it deserved”. It also raised concerns about the overall delays and lack of response to its reports. It asked for an urgent meeting was held to discuss the matter. We consider this was appropriate because it was trying to escalate and address the poor communication and delays. We note there was no evidence of a response from the freeholder.
During July 2023 the resident told the landlord (in correspondence that included it and the freeholder) that roofers had attended without notice. But had confirmed a gap in the far corner of the building where a tile may have come loose. She said the roofers had told her this was an issue with all of the roofs on the development. And they advised that scaffolding needed to be erected so they could return to resolve this. She asked for an update on when the scaffolding was due to be raised and a repair reference for the job.
There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident. Nor that it had contacted the freeholder to understand its intentions towards the repair or to get the repair reference. This would have enabled it to provide an update and to manage her expectations around the next steps of the process. This was a failure to engage with the freeholder and the resident about the details for the scaffolding. This meant it was unable to manage her expectations about this. This caused the resident frustration because she felt the landlord was ignoring her.
Further, it failed to discuss the poor coordination of the appointment. Given this was the third appointment that the resident had said that the freeholder had attended without prior notice, it would have been reasonable to have raised this with them. That it did not was a failure to raise legitimate concerns about the arrangements for the repairs. Particularly when all parties required the resident’s engagement to allow access to the roof.
On 22 August 2023, the landlord said it was waiting for the freeholder’s surveyor to provide another update. And a timeframe for the work to be carried out. The resident told the landlord that if it did not provide a meaningful update by 28 August 2023, she would file a complaint with us. The landlord said in its stage 1 acknowledgement on 29 August 2023, that scaffolding would be put up that week for the roof repair.
We recognise the resident’s frustration that there were no forthcoming updates after the freeholder’s appointment. However, the landlord was unable to control the essence of the update, because it was the responsibility of the freeholder to take appropriate steps to arrange the scaffolding. Therefore, providing the resident with what she may have considered “meaningful update” in the timeframes requested would have been outside of the landlord’s control.
The landlord demonstrated that it had communicated with the freeholder during this time, because it provided an update about the scaffolding in its stage 1 acknowledgement. However, it did not share evidence of the communications it had with us. This was disappointing to note and evidence of poor record keeping. The landlord later said in its stage 1 response (31 August 2023) that the delays were caused because of a change in roofing contractor. This was because the contractor originally instructed could not carry out the work. This was exacerbated by the delay caused by the need for scaffolding work to be erected before any work was carried out.
While the landlord acted reasonably to explain to the resident the cause of the freeholder’s delays, it is unclear, whether it ought to have done so sooner. As the landlord’s communications with the freeholder were incomplete, we could not be satisfied it could not have explained the reason for the delays at an earlier opportunity. This failure was due to poor record keeping.
The resident reported that the scaffolding was not erected on 4 September 2023. The landlord appropriately contacted the freeholder to ask for an update, as well as a timeframe for the work to be completed. It also conducted a site visit on 11 September 2023 and found the scaffolding had been erected. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it had met with the freeholder on 12 September 2023 to discuss the matter. And a building surveyor had attended and found that the scaffolding erected was to look at a separate issue.
Shortly after it told the resident a surveyor was due to inspect on 19 September 2023 and to provide their recommendations the day after. Then, in its stage 2 response, the landlord said the surveyor had confirmed the leak had dried out and offered reassurance that the roofing company had come back to inspect and were satisfied there was no issue identified.
We consider that the landlord took steps to contact the freeholder for an update. As well as physically taking steps to satisfy itself that the scaffolding had been erected. Although there was no evidence of the freeholder’s response to the landlord, an update was provided by the landlord about the surveyor’s visit promptly. This indicates the landlord had communicated with the freeholder about the status of the repair. As such, we consider the landlord acted reasonably to engage with the freeholder, monitor the status of the repair, and update the resident during this time.
The resident also raised concerns in her correspondence to the landlord that the freeholder did not hold her information. This meant that when she contacted them directly, they repeatedly asked her for her details so that they could identify her and the repair issue. Frequently, the freeholder was unable to match the resident’s details to the property. The landlord explained to the resident that, as the freeholder does not have a contract with her, they would not hold her details on their system. While we understand this would be frustrating for the resident, it is important to note that the freeholder is under no obligation to keep the resident’s details. This is because the freeholder does not have a legal relationship with her. Therefore, we consider the landlord acted reasonably when it explained to her why this was the case. And that it was not responsible for the frustration this caused her.

Post complaint procedure

On 27 September the resident asked for an update because there had been no progress. The landlord chased the freeholder or an update. The freeholder explained that it had escalated the matter to a senior member of staff in the maintenance team and that a visit had been arranged for 3 October 2023 to inspect the roof. But they would confirm the appointment with the resident and share the outcome with it. The landlord appropriately updated the resident of this.
The landlord contacted the freeholder on 3 October 2023 to understand what had happened at the appointment. The freeholder said it had made multiple attempts to contact the resident, with no success, to arrange access for the appointment. They said they had emailed the resident that morning to confirm the appointment. Also, even if access were not provided, they would inspect the roof through the communal roof hatch to assess if rainwater was penetrating the building. It is unclear what the freeholder found during this appointment.

Conclusion

While we recognise there were delays in inspecting the roof and carrying out repairs, there was no evidence that these were attributable to the landlord. This is because there was evidence of the landlord reporting the leak in a timely manner. It also chased the freeholder to progress inspections and took steps to escalate the repair to senior management.
However, the landlord’s record keeping undermined its ability to demonstrate it had raised the resident’s concerns to the freeholder about the lack of notice before appointments. And to gain important updates about the status of the landlord’s inspections. This meant, at intervals, it failed to address her concerns and meaningfully engage with her about the reasons for the delays. And to manage her expectations about what would happen and when. This caused the resident uncertainty, frustration, and time and trouble reporting the same issues with appointments. For this reason, we have made a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
The landlord’s formal responses explained the action it had taken and that the repair responsibilities were for the freeholder. It offered to paint and redecorate the affected ceiling once repairs were complete as a gesture of goodwill. However, it did not identify its failures as set out in this report. Therefore, we do not consider that its offer was proportionate to address the failures we found during our investigation.
To put things right the landlord must apologise and pay the resident £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience of its handling of the communications with the resident and the freeholder. It must also conduct a review of its record keeping for this case to identify what went wrong, why and what it will do to ensure important information is captured during its contract management with the freeholder in future.

Complaint handling

Our Complaint Handling Code 2022 (‘the former Code’) was in force at the time of the complaint. This states that landlords must respond to complaints as follows:
1. issue a stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of logging the complaint. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
2. issue a stage 2 within 20 working days of receiving the escalation request. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
The resident said during her correspondence with the landlord and us that she had made a complaint in April 2023 about the roof. The landlord said that the resident was making a service request to ask that the leak into her bedroom be resolved, which she believed was coming from the roof. The evidence we have seen from this time suggests this was the first time the resident had brought her concerns about the roof to the landlord’s attention.
The former Code defines a service request as “a request from a resident to their landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right.” The evidence suggests that during April 2023 the resident was asking the landlord to fix the roof. Therefore, we consider the landlord acted reasonably when it reported the repair to the freeholder as opposed to triggering its complaints process.
On 16 August 2023, following contact from the resident, we wrote to the landlord setting out the resident’s complaint. And asked it to respond through its complaint process. The landlord issued its stage 1 response (31 August 2023), 11 working days later. While this was outside of the timeframes set out in the former Code, the delay was minimal. There is no evidence that this significantly inconvenienced the resident either. As such, we consider that this was a shortcoming as opposed to a failing. The landlord is, however, reminded to communicate any delays to the resident, regardless of the length of the interval.
Overall, we found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s management of her personal data and the housing development are outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures found in this report.
2. pay the resident £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience of its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
3. conduct a case review of its record keeping in relation to its correspondence with the freeholder. This must identify the minimum standards that ought to have been recorded in its records, which of these standards it failed to adhere to, and why.

Recommendation

We recommend that the landlord consider whether it is appropriate to discuss and/or agree on a procedure with the freeholder for reporting and escalating repairs. This is to enable it to escalate repairs effectively, if required. And to provide residents with information about what they can expect from the landlord and the freeholder in similar cases.