We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (202424423)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424423

Bury Metropolitan Borough 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, 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 response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. No heating and hot water.
    2. Leaks.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. He lives in a 2-bedroom house. The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. These include issues with his mobility.
  2. The resident reported a leak from his boiler to the landlord on 20 December 2022. He said he had no heating or hot water the following day. The landlord’s gas contractor attended on 21 December 2022. It partially repaired the boiler. It left it in working order and ordered parts to complete the repairs on the next day. When the contractor attended on 22 December 2022 it could not gain access. It left a card asking the resident to contact it to rearrange. The resident rearranged for 6 March 2023.
  3. The resident reported a leak in his kitchen sink to the landlord’s gas contractor on 22 January 2024. The gas contractor told him he would need to report that issue to the landlord.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 16 May 2024. He said the contractor had left him without heating and hot water following a boiler service in January 2024. He also said his boiler had leaked on an earlier occasion. This had damaged his carpet.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 June 2024. It told the resident it would not usually investigate issues that were more than 12 months old, but it had used its discretion to do so in his complaint. It found it had acted quickly to resolve the lack of heating and hot water in December 2022. It did not identify any notes or contact from him to suggest that there was any damage caused at that time. It also found that it had restored heating and hot water the same day he had reported it in January 2024. It was satisfied that its contractor had acted correctly when it told the resident he should report the leak from his sink to the landlord’s Housing Team. The landlord had no evidence the resident had reported that leak to it. It offered to inspect his sink.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 9 June 2024. He said the landlord had not mentioned the damage caused to his home from having a faulty boiler for 2 years. He also said he had been without heating and hot water for 2 years.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 9 July 2024. It told him it found no evidence it had left him without heating and hot water for 2 years. It said it had proactively responded to repairs. It added it had offered him temporary heating for the periods where he was without heating, but he had refused. It repeated that its contractor had told him to report the leak in his kitchen sink to the landlord, but he had not done so.
  8. The resident escalated his complaint to us in February 2024. He does not agree with the landlord’s response to his complaint. He wants it to provide compensation for the lack of heating and hot water. He has also asked it to provide compensation for the damage caused to his carpet.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told us he has several other concerns about how the landlord has handled other repairs in his home. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to our involvement. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. The resident also has a complaint with us about antisocial behaviour, which we will respond to separately. 
  2. The landlord used its discretion to investigate matters from December 2022. Our investigation has focussed on the same period.


Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water

  1. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the resident’s boiler. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend and make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours. It aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
  2. When the resident reported he had no heating and hot water in December 2022 the landlord acted promptly and in line with its repairs policy. Its gas contractor restored heating and hot water the same day, making the repair safe. Its contractor returned to complete the additional repairs the next day. There was no access, so it was reasonable it left a card asking the resident to arrange a new appointment. The resident did not contact the landlord until 6 March 2024. It arranged for its gas contractor to attend and complete the outstanding repair the same day. As heating and hot water had been restored in the initial appointment there was no detriment caused to the resident.
  3. The landlord’s gas contractor attempted to complete a boiler service on 10 January 2024. It noted the resident had not made a clear path for it to check the boiler, so it rearranged. There were no notes from that appointment to suggest the resident was without heating or hot water. The contractor completed the survey on 17 January 2024.
  4. It was shortly after the boiler service, on the same day 17 January 2024 that the resident notified the landlord of no heating and hot water. Its gas contractor attended the same day in line with the 24-hour emergency timescale. It was appropriate that it completed a temporary repair which left him with heating and hot water. The contractor returned on 22 and 25 January 2024 and repaired the boiler. As the contractor had restored heating and hot water at the initial appointment it was reasonable the landlord completed the other outstanding repairs over the next 8 days. That was less than the 20 working days allowed for a routine repair under its policy.
  5. The landlord’s approach at both stages was reasonable. It showed customer focus when it agreed to investigate his complaint about the earlier issues. It was appropriate that it explained to him that its response to his reports of no heating and hot water was reasonable and in line with its policy.
  6. On both occasions the landlord’s gas contractor restored heating and hot water within the 24 hours allowed by its repairs policy. The resident has not provided any evidence to show he reported no heating and hot water after those 2 repairs. So, it was reasonable for the landlord to believe there were no further issues. For those reasons, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks

  1. When the resident reported a leak from his boiler in December 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended within 24 hours as an emergency appointment. That was appropriate and in line with its repairs policy. It was not convenient for the resident when it attended, so it arranged a new appointment for the following day. It repaired the boiler. There is no record the resident told either the contractor or landlord that the leak from the boiler had damaged his carpet.
  2. The resident also reported a leak to the landlord’s gas contractor in January 2024. The contractor checked the leak and identified it was a problem with the resident’s kitchen sink. As the contractor’s responsibilities did not extend to repairing sinks it was reasonable it told the resident he should report the leak to the landlord. While it would have been good customer service for the contractor to have reported this to the landlord, under the terms of the tenancy agreement the resident was responsible for notifying the landlord. There is no evidence he did until he raised his stage 1 complaint in May 2024.
  3. From the evidence provided it is not clear whether the landlord was aware of the gas contractor’s notes at the time or whether they only received them as part of the complaint investigation. As the contractor had told the resident what he needed to do to report the leak from his sink the onus was on him to contact the landlord.
  4. The landlord’s response at both complaint stages was reasonable. As the resident had said the leak damaged his carpet it was appropriate the landlord provided details for its insurer at stage 1. That is because the insurer can decide on whether the landlord had acted negligently and, if appropriate, the amount that should be paid to the resident. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance to manage the cost of such claims as the landlord was not obliged to consider a claim outside the insurance process.
  5. It was also appropriate that the landlord offered to attend the resident’s home to inspect the leak in his kitchen sink. The resident refused the landlord access on 19 June 2024 when it tried to inspect the leak. As part of its investigations the landlord could not locate any evidence the resident had reported the leak to it.
  6. The landlord acted quickly to resolve the leak with the resident’s boiler. It was not aware of the issues with his kitchen sink until he raised it as part of his stage 1 complaint. It was appropriate it attempted to inspect the leak. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks.


Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of no heating or hot water.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks.