Gateway Housing Association Limited (202439005)

Decision
Case ID	202439005
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Gateway Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured tenancy
Date	17 December 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bed second floor flat. The landlord told us that the resident does not have any vulnerabilities. The resident told us, and the landlord, that she had several underlying chronic health conditions including diabetes, a heart condition, IBS and anxiety. Initially the complaint centred around communication and timescales for planned works to replace the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. During the kitchen works, a gas leak occurred, and this was the subject of the resident’s escalated complaint, along with associated communication issues and missed appointments. The resident has confirmed to us that the gas leak, kitchen and bathroom works have been resolved at the time of this investigation.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of gas leaks and gas safety concerns following major works.
2. The resident’s reports of missed appointments.
3. The resident’s reports of bathroom repairs.
4. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of gas leaks and gas safety concerns following major works.
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of missed appointments.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of bathroom repairs.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Gas leaks and gas safety concerns

The landlord responded promptly to both reported gas leaks, fixed the problem the same day, and checked the appliance was safe before leaving. It apologised, offered compensation, replaced the faulty cooker hose and identified learning. It did not record or consider fully the resident’s medical needs in its response.

Missed appointments

The landlord raised a job to replace the resident’s smoke and fire alarm in a timely way. The completion was delayed by a missed appointment (due to lack of parking) and a no access appointment. The landlord apologised, identified learning in its contractor practices and offered the resident £20 compensation for the inconvenience.

Bathroom repairs

The landlord completed the repair successfully within 2 days of it being reported by the resident and there have been no reported issues since.

Complaint handling

The landlord met the timescales in our Complaint Handling Code but failed to treat the resident’s 12 July 2024 email as a complaint, gave no reason for not escalating it, and offered no redress. This oversight delayed a formal response, made the resident pursue the matter again, and postponed her ability to escalate the case.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £550 (including what it offered prior to this investigation) comprised of: £300 it offered during its complaint process. The landlord may deduct from this figure any payments it has already made. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings in its response to the resident’s gas safety concerns identified in this report. £50 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord failing to recognise her complaint at the earliest opportunity. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 14 January 2026
2	Learning order The landlord must undertake a review of this case and provide the outcome of the review to us. The review should aim to identify the root causes of the failures identified in this report. In particular it must: Examine the reasons why the landlord’s kitchen contractor undertook gas works without being suitably qualified and, in addition, why the works were not subject to a post-completion survey of the gas works. Examine the reason the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction was not registered and escalated as a complaint. Examine the reasons the resident’s medical needs and reasonable adjustments were not reflected on the landlord’s system. Outline what actions it can take to prevent a reoccurrence in future. This may include staff training, process changes, alterations to its policies or other actions. It must also set out how it will implement any learning in a reasonable period of time.	No later than 28 January 2026
3	Specific action order The landlord must: Contact the resident and obtain her up to date medical needs and reasonable adjustments. Update its record management system to accurately reflect the resident’s medical needs and adjustments. Detail how it will ensure these are kept updated moving forward.	No later than 14 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 July 2024	The resident told the landlord that she was dissatisfied with its response regarding the timescales for its planned works to her bathroom and kitchen.
23 July 2024	The resident complained that the landlord had not responded to calls about her bathroom and kitchen refurbishment.
2 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and apologised for the delays in responding to the resident and undertaking a survey of her property. It said that her kitchen and bathroom were on the planned works programme and that it would shortly survey and set out a schedule of works. It offered £50 compensation for the delays.
19 September 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said that the landlord did not have suitable safety protocols in place for gas safety, which resulted in a 3-week gas leak in her property. She also said that poor communication continued and she was still awaiting an appointment for a plumber to resolve a leak from her toilet.
9 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response and said: It apologised for poor communication about the kitchen and bathroom works and acknowledged delays to fixing the toilet and a missed smoke‑alarm visit. The resident had reported a gas smell on 18 September; contractors resealed and refitted the cooker hose, pressure‑tested the boiler and found no leak. It had fixed the toilet leak on 19 September and recorded that the resident was happy with the kitchen and bathroom works on 2 October. It had tested the alarms on 18 September, found them adequate, and recommended them for replacement before 2028. The missed appointment had resulted from a lack of parking and was rebooked for 18 October. It committed to using a Gas Safe engineer for future kitchen refits, apologised, and offered a total of £120 (£50 for poor communication within its stage 1 process, £20 for the missed appointment, and £50 for distress and inconvenience).
30 October 2024	The landlord told the resident it had reviewed her case and increased its stage 2 compensation offer to £250 to account for the additional distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the gas leaks. It said this was the “maximum offer”. It also said it would replace the gas hose to her cooker as a “gesture of goodwill”.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us to investigate on 2 April 2025. She was seeking additional compensation for the distress, inconvenience, health impacts and loss of her employment, which she attributed to the landlord’s failings.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of gas leaks and gas safety concerns following major works
Finding	Maladministration

The resident’s stage 1 complaint was about delays to surveying and completing planned works to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. She said that other properties were completed, but hers had been left and she chased the landlord for an update on this. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response apologised for this, offered £50 compensation for the delays in surveying and committed to contacting her shortly to arrange the works. The evidence shows that the works took place between 14 and 30 August 2024 in her kitchen and 2 and 12 September 2024 in her bathroom. This was reasonable in the circumstances. The resident did not escalate this element of her complaint to stage 2 or to the Ombudsman to consider as part of this complaint.
During the planned works to her kitchen, the resident reported to the landlord that its contractors had “rough handled” her appliances into the middle of the room and left them uncovered while they completed works. The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 say that all gas fittings, pipework and installations in a property owned by the landlord fall within their responsibilities to maintain in safe condition.
During the works, the resident reported that a trolley had been used to move her cooker and that she had witnessed the hose being run over by the trolley wheel. It is unclear from the evidence whether the cooker was fully disconnected or only moved to the centre of the room. Had the cooker been fully disconnected this would have allowed easier access to the kitchen during the works. However, the landlord file does not provide sufficient information on the appliances and this was a record keeping failure.
During the reinstatement of her kitchen, the resident said that she had queried directly with the contractor whether her cooker needed to be refitted by a gas safe engineer. The contractor said that it did not as he was a general builder with many years of experience and refitted the cooker. The resident said she had contacted the landlord on the same day to query this, but received no reply until she raised her formal complaint. The resident also told the landlord that she had reported that she could smell gas to the contractor, but was told this smell was from the gloss paint used, and that it would subside. While we have not seen this correspondence the landlord acknowledged its failure to respond in its correspondence from 17 September 2024.
This was a failing by both the landlord’s contractor who appears to have misrepresented their qualifications, and by the landlord for its lack of response and failure to manage this safety-critical aspect of its contractor’s work. This meant the landlord did not obtain competent assurance that the appliance was left safe which caused significant worry and distress to the resident.
On 17 September 2025, a heating contractor noted a “small leak in cooker connection to the hose” during a visit and the resident reported this gas leak to the landlord. The contractor, who was gas safe registered, sealed the hose and found the appliance safe to use. The resident said that the leak had caused her migraines, vomiting and time off work. In her stage 2 complaint escalation the resident queried the landlord’s gas safety processes and why she was left with an active gas leak for almost 3 weeks from the reinstatement of her cooker. The landlord queried why the resident had not raised this between 2 and 12 September 2025 when its contractors were on site for other works.
In its stage 2 response it found no failing in its repair, as this was completed on the same day it was identified. This was not a reasonable position for the landlord to take, given the landlord’s original contractor was not gas safe registered, or competent to assess the appliance. On this basis, the landlord cannot be certain that the leak was not present from the completion of the kitchen works, almost 3 weeks earlier.
The landlord offered £50 for the distress and inconvenience of this issue and identified learning that it would require a gas safe engineer to check all kitchens in future, to ensure that no gas issues were present. This was reasonable learning given the concerns raised, however the compensation was not appropriate given the failings identified.
On 28 October 2025, the resident reported a further gas leak, which she said had been identified by a contractor the previous day. In response to this, the contractor disconnected the gas meter and left the resident without heating, hot water or a working cooker. The resident told the landlord there had been several impacts of the gas leaks including:
1. A fear for her family’s safety if the cooker was used. This had meant she bought takeaway food and incurred additional cost in doing this.
2. An impact on her diet, health and ability to safely cook healthy food. She said this was significant because she was diabetic and needed to manage her blood sugar levels.
3. Increased costs from her utility provider due to the gas lost from the leaks.
4. A “workplace manager situation” due to her taking additional time off work due to sickness related to the gas leaks. This later led to the resident being dismissed from her work in January 2025.
In a further response on 28 October 2024, the landlord apologised for the inconvenience of the “recurring gas leak” and told the resident that an emergency appointment had been booked the same day to rectify the issue. This was a reasonable and timely response to the resident’s reports. The landlord increased the compensation offered from £120 in its stage 2 complaint response to a total of £250 for the additional distress and inconvenience caused. Additionally, the landlord said it would replace the cooker hose, which it did on 30 October 2024. While the leak reoccurred, the landlord was entitled to rely on the view of its professional gas safe qualified contractor following the first repair appointment, who repaired the hose and found it to be safe.
It is acknowledged that the resident has set out a range of impacts from this period. The landlord has gone some way to providing redress for this with its apology, learning and compensation. We cannot comment on the effects the gas leak may have had on the resident’s health or existing medical conditions, beyond recognising this would have placed additional distress and inconvenience on her. Similarly, we cannot make a judgement on whether the gas leak (and the associated absence) was the sole cause of the resident’s dismissal from her paid employment. In both cases, the resident may wish to take legal advice on the merit of pursuing legal action or a personal injury claim for these issues, where the court can assess the medical and employment evidence and award damages if appropriate.
It was concerning to note that the landlord told us that it did not have any health needs or vulnerabilities on its system for the resident. The resident highlighted her medical conditions and the impact that the complaint process was having on her (and her wider family) on several occasions. It was a failing that the landlord did not record this information or respond to this within its complaint responses in any meaningful way.
Overall, the landlord responded in a timely way to the resident’s two reports of gas leaks, once it was notified, including replacing the gas hose. It also identified learning in its own processes and with its contractor. However, there were failings by the landlord to ensure its original contractor was competent to undertake the works to refit the cooker and failing to act on the resident’s concerns about this in a timely way. It also did not fully acknowledge or consider the resident’s health needs and on this basis its compensation was not appropriate to provide redress for the failings or distress and inconvenience caused. Taking these factors together, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of missed appointments
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord raised a job for a replacement fire and smoke alarm following the resident’s stage 2 complaint escalation. The evidence shows that this was shown to be safe and functional in recent gas safety checks but had been due to be replaced by 2018.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that it attempted to complete this on 1 October 2024, but the contractor was not able to park nearby due to an event in the area. The resident told the landlord that this was unacceptable as her husband had taken leave from work to facilitate the appointment. Internally, the landlord reminded its contractors of the correct procedures if appointments could not be kept, for example escalating this to a team leader to consider.
A second appointment was booked for 18 October 2024 but was recorded as a no access appointment. The works were completed during a third appointment on 21 October 2025. This included a test of the system and all was recorded as satisfactory. In recognition of the first missed appointment, the landlord apologised and offered £20 compensation in its stage 2 complaint response. This was in line with its complaint policy and in addition to the contractor’s explanation of the reasons.
We appreciate the frustration caused by missed appointments and the need to take time off work. However, given the relatively short delay between raising and completion of the works, the mitigation provided by the contractor and the apology and compensation offered by the landlord, it has provided the resident with reasonable redress, prior to our investigation, which has concluded this element of the complaint satisfactorily.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of bathroom repairs
Finding	No maladministration

The resident told the landlord on 17 September 2024 that there was a leak from her toilet. The landlord’s repair handbook does not set out the repair priority for this specific type of leak. It says that it will respond to urgent works within 7 days and routine works within 30 days.
The evidence shows that the resident chased this in her stage 2 complaint escalation on 19 September 2025 as she had not received a response. The landlord responded on this day and said that it would arrange for a plumber to attend on the same day to resolve the issue. The landlord’s repair records indicate that the repair was successfully completed on this day. Overall, the repair was completed within 2 days of being reported and this is within either the landlord’s urgent or routine repair timescales and on this basis, we can find no failing in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being raised. The records show that the landlord provided its formal responses within these timescales.
The Code defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.” The landlord’s complaint policy also adopts this definition.
The evidence shows that the resident explicitly told the landlord on 12 July 2024 that she was “dissatisfied” with an earlier response about her kitchen and bathroom replacements and the associated communication. The landlord’s staff internally said that it had not raised this as a complaint. It gave no reason for this statement or this approach, and this was a failing to identify and escalate the complaint at an earlier stage. There has been no evidence provided to indicate that the landlord acknowledged this earlier oversight or provided any redress for this matter.
Taking these factors together, while the landlord did respond within the timescales shown in the Code and its own policy, it failed to recognise the complaint being raised at the earliest opportunity. This delayed by 7 working days the resident receiving a formal response and meant she had to raise the issue again later. This can only have caused her additional time and trouble in pursuing the matter to completion.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s repair and complaint records were generally well ordered and clear, however the failure to accurately record the resident’s health needs was a significant failing which must be addressed promptly.

Communication

The evidence shows that the resident had to chase communication with the landlord on several occasions, particularly related to its planned maintenance. There was also a significant failure to respond to the resident’s contact about gas safety in a timely way. Internally, the landlord’s communication with its contractors was timely, particularly related to safety issues such as the gas leaks.