Milton Keynes City Council (202219477)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219477

Milton Keynes City Council

31 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s requests for a new water cylinder.
   2. Handling of repairs to resolve a leak through an outbuilding roof.
   3. Response to the resident’s requests for compensation for damaged belongings.
2. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant and he lives in a 1 bedroom bungalow. He has multiple health conditions. He was represented by Citizen’s Advice from 6 December 2023 and during our investigation.
4. Around 3 June 2022, the resident asked the landlord to replace his water cylinder. The landlord’s contractor inspected on 12 September 2022.
5. On 20 September 2022, the resident reported flooding from a toilet leak. The contractor repaired the leak on 23 September 2022. The resident reported it leaking again later that day and the contractor returned to repair it on 26 September 2022.
6. The resident complained to the landlord on 28 September 2022. He said he wanted the water cylinder replacing because it was 25 years old and the landlord had closed his request without explaining why. He also said it had not replied to his reports of water leaking through the outbuilding roof and he could not afford to replace belongings damaged by the leaks from his toilet.
7. On 27 October 2022, the resident made the same complaint to the landlord’s contractor. The contractor replied on 1 December 2022.
8. The resident asked the Ombudsman for help with his complaint issues on 28 January 2023. We wrote to the landlord asking it to respond to his complaint.
9. It gave its stage 1 response on 25 April 2023 saying it had repaired the door of the outbuilding on 14 January 2023 and would replace the roof on 26 April 2023. It gave a link for the resident to use to make a claim for his damaged belongings from its insurance.
10. After contact from the resident’s representative, we wrote to the landlord on 6 March 2024 asking it to provide a final complaint response.
11. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 2 April 2024 which repeated the information it had given at stage 1.
12. The representative asked us to investigate the resident’s complaint on 19 December 2024. They later told us the resident was not satisfied because the landlord had not replaced his water cylinder or given compensation for his damaged belongings. He was also unhappy that the landlord had not apologised.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s requests for a new water cylinder.

13. The resident asked the landlord to replace his water cylinder around 3 June 2022. The evidence shows he felt it was old and not efficient.
14. His tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for keeping any installations it provides in good working order. This includes the water cylinder and means the landlord must do any repairs needed to keep it in working order. There is no obligation for the landlord to replace the cylinder as long as it is in working order or can be repaired.
15. It is not clear from the landlord’s records what happened after the resident first asked it to replace the tank in June 2022. We would have expected it to have inspected to decide if any repair or replacement was needed. It should then have explained its decision to the resident.
16. The landlord’s contractor inspected on 12 September 2022 and it is not clear why it took over 3 months for the inspection. The records show the cylinder was in working order and no repairs were needed. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident it would not replace the cylinder.
17. After the resident complained to the landlord on 28 September 2022, the contractor visited again to provide the landlord with a quote for replacing the cylinder. It is not clear if the contactor did send a quote to the landlord.
18. After the contractor’s visit, the resident complained to the contractor on 27 October 2022. It is not clear if the landlord was aware of this at the time.
19. The landlord also arranged to inspect and did so on 10 November 2022. There is no evidence to explain the outcome of the surveyors inspection.
20. On 1 December 2022, the contractor replied to the complaint it had received from the resident. It said the landlord had not instructed it to replace the water cylinder. It gave contact details for the resident to get in touch with the landlord if he was not happy. There is no evidence he did so at this point.
21. The landlord did not address the matter of the water cylinder in either of its complaint responses. This was a failing that meant it missed the opportunity to explain its repairing obligations and confirm its position regarding replacing the cylinder.
22. After further intervention by the Ombudsman, the landlord asked its contractor to inspect again on 15 August 2024. The contractor exchanged emails with the resident on 19 August 2024 to arrange the inspection. The contractor sent the emails to the landlord later that day. It appears this led to a misunderstanding where the contractor and the landlord each thought the other would visit the resident. There is no evidence that either visited him at the time.
23. The landlord did visit on 12 September 2024. It wrote to the resident on 16 September saying he had not raised any further issues with the water cylinder during the visit. The landlord again missed the opportunity to explain its repairing obligations and confirm it did not intend to replace the cylinder in its letter.
24. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a new water cylinder. While it may not have had an obligation to replace it, it could have explained its position to the resident to manage his expectation. There is no evidence it did so at any point. This was a failing that led to the resident’s complaint.
25. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and confirm its position in respect of replacing the cylinder.

Handling of repairs to resolve a leak through an outbuilding roof

26. The landlord’s tenancy handbook explains residents can report repairs directly to its contractor or to the landlord. It defines emergency repairs as when an issue is causing danger and needs making safe. The landlord will respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours to make safe. Its timescale for responding to non-emergency repairs is 28 days.
27. It is not clear from the evidence seen when the resident first reported repairs being needed to the outbuilding. In his complaint to the landlord of 28 September 2022, he said that no one had replied to his reports of leaks through the roof. This suggests he had previously reported the repair. He described the situation as “very dangerous” because rainwater was leaking onto his gas and electric meters.
28. This should have caused the landlord check if its contractor had already assessed the repair. If not, the landlord should have arranged for it to do so and made sure the situation was safe in line with its repair policy. There is no evidence the landlord took any steps to check the situation was safe and this was a failing.
29. The resident raised the matter of the leaking outhouse roof in his complaint to the contractor of 27 October 2022. There is no evidence the contractor took any action to address the repair at the time. This was inappropriate because the landlord’s policy says residents can report repairs directly to the contractor. The landlord should make sure its contractor acts on repairs reported to it in line with the landlord’s policy.
30. The landlord’s surveyor inspected on 10 November 2022. The landlord did not provide us with information to explain the outcome of the visit.
31. The landlord’s repair records show the outbuilding was inspected again on 30 November 2022. It is not clear whether this inspection was done by the landlord or its contractor. Following the inspection, the contractor repaired the door and frame of the outbuilding on 13 January 2023. It is not clear why no repairs appear to have been arranged for the roof leak by this point, given it was the leak that the resident had been reporting.
32. Records suggest that the outbuilding roof was inspected on 24 March 2023. On 31 March 2023 the contractor emailed the resident to say it had asked a specialist contractor to inspect. By this time, at least 6 months had passed since the resident reported the roof leak. It should not have taken so long to seek a specialist’s opinion.
33. The landlord’s records show the roof was replaced on 24 April 2023. It appears this resolved the leak as there is no further reference to the roof leaking after this date in the evidence seen.
34. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to resolve the leak through the outbuilding roof. This is because it:
    1. Did not act to make sure the situation was safe following the resident’s complaint of 28 September 2022. Its records do not explain why it did not act.
    2. Did not address the leak following inspections done on 10 November 2022, 30 November 2022 and 23 March 2023. Its records do not explain why.
    3. Took at least 6 months to resolve the leak from the resident’s complaint of 28 September 2022. No reasonable explanation has been provided for why it took so long.
35. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £150 compensation. This is £50 for each of the failings identified. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and appropriately reflects the distress and inconvenience likely to have been caused by its failings.

Response to the resident’s requests for compensation for damaged belongings.

36. The landlord’s tenancy handbook explains that residents are responsible for insuring their home contents and belongings. Its compensation policy says it will not usually consider compensating for damage that would be covered by a resident’s home contents insurance. This is a reasonable approach when events that the landlord could not have reasonably prevented cause damage to a resident’s belongings.
37. In his complaint of 28 September 2022, the resident told the landlord there had been repeated leaks from his toilet. He explained the contractor had repaired a leak on 20 September 2022 but it had leaked again the following day. He attached photographs of the damage caused to his belongings and said he could not afford to replace them.
38. This suggests the resident thought it was the landlord’s fault that his belongings were damaged. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated or given the resident advice on how he could claim from its insurance if he felt it was at fault. There is no evidence the landlord replied at the time and this was a failing.
39. After the Ombudsman’s intervention, the landlord addressed the resident’s request for compensation in its stage 1 response of 25 April 2023. It gave him a link to claim from its insurance. It did so again in its stage 2 response of 2 April 2024. This gave the resident the opportunity to make a claim against the landlord’s insurance but it is not clear if he did so.
40. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation. It gave the resident the opportunity to claim from its insurance from 25 April 2023. However, it should have done so sooner when it received his complaint of 28 September 2022.
41. We have ordered the landlord to apologise. It should also consider how it can make sure it provides clear and timely responses to residents wishing to claim for damaged belongings in the future.

Complaint handling

42. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must:
    1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
    2. Give a stage 1 response within 10 working days for the acknowledgement.
    3. Give a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging an escalation request.
43. The resident first complained on 28 September 2022 in a letter he sent to the landlord’s office. The landlord should have logged the complaint and dealt with it through its complaints process. While it acknowledged the letter on 9 October 2022, it did not deal with it as a complaint. This was a failing that delayed the resident from completing its complaint process and bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman.
44. The resident sent the same complaint to the landlord’s contractor on 27 October 2022. It is not clear whether the landlord was aware of it at the time. There is no provision in the landlord’s complaints policy for its contractor to deal with complaints on its behalf. The landlord should make sure its contractor passes on any complaints received so the landlord can deal with them in line with its complaints policy.
45. We asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint on 8 February 2023. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time said it would respond to complaints at stage 1 within 20 working days. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 25 April 2023. This was 53 working days after we asked it to give a complaint response. This means the stage 1 response was late and it is not clear why.
46. There is no evidence the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint after receiving the stage 1 response. As such it was reasonable the landlord took no further action at this stage.
47. On 5 March 2024, following contact from the resident’s representative, we asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response by 12 March 2024. It did not do so and we issued a Final Notice for Action which required the landlord to give its stage 2 response by 19 March 2024.
48. It is not clear why it took the landlord until 2 April 2024 to give its stage 2 response. The late response caused further delay in the resident being able to ask us to investigate his complaint.
49. It was a further failing that neither of the complaint responses addressed the resident’s complaint about the water cylinder. The Code requires landlords to address all parts of a complaint in their responses. The landlord’s failure to do so was contrary to the requirements of the Code. It meant we had to write to the landlord again to ask it to address that part of the resident’s complaint.
50. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because:
    1. It did not deal with the resident’s complaint of 28 September 2024 through its complaints process.
    2. Both its complaint responses were late and neither addressed the resident’s complaint about the water cylinder.
51. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £100 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience likely to have been caused by the landlord’s failings.

Review of policies and practice

52. In this investigation we found failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. The Code became statutory from 1 April 2024. While most of the events in this case happened before this, the landlord’s current policy (effective from April 2024) does not appear to be compliant with the Code. We have referred this to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.
53. We also found failings in the landlord’s record keeping. We found similar failings in cases 202223389 and 202319036. In May 2024, we ordered the landlord to improve its practices. The landlord complied with our order and we will assess the impact of the changes it has made through our future casework.
54. We have not made further orders in this case because the events took place before the landlord’s review. However, the landlord should consider the record keeping failures we have identified and consider if it needs to make any further improvements.

Determination

55. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s requests for a new water cylinder.
    2. Response to the resident’s requests for compensation for damaged belongings.
56. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to resolve the leak through the outbuilding roof.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

57. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must send us evidence to show it has complied with the following orders:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise. Its apology must acknowledge the failings we have identified and the impact on the resident. The landlord must send us a copy to show it has complied.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £250. It must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It is made up of:
       1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience likely to have been caused by its handling of repairs to resolve the leak through the outbuilding roof.
       2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience likely to have been caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
    3. Write to the resident to confirm its position in respect of replacing the water cylinder. It must explain its repairing obligations and how it has made its decision on whether to replace the cylinder.

Recommendations

58. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord consider:
    1. How it can make sure its contractor acts on repairs reported directly to it and passes on complaints for the landlord to deal with through its complaints process.
    2. How it can make sure it provides clear and timely responses to residents wishing to claim for damaged belongings in future.
    3. The failings we have identified in its record keeping. It should decide if it needs to make further improvements to its practices to avoid similar failings in future.