Community Gateway Association Limited (202336257)

Decision
Case ID	202336257
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Community Gateway Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	11 December 2025

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. He reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) from some of his neighbours in November 2022. The landlord opened an ASB case. He reported repairs to his front door and kitchen window around October 2023. He made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the ASB case and the repairs in November 2023. The resident said the repairs at his property are not done.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs, in particular:
  1. The front door.
  2. A kitchen window.
  3. The Boiler.
2. ASB.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for errors in its handling of the repairs.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of ASB.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs

There were delays in progressing with the front door and kitchen window repairs. The resident was inconvenienced by the delay. The landlord used its complaint response to address the resident’s concerns in detail and set out its position in relation to the repairs. The compensation it offered was appropriate to put right its errors.

ASB

There were errors in the landlord’s communication in relation to the ASB cases. The evidence shows it was taking actions to investigate the ASB. But it failed to communicate effectively with the resident, particularly when it decided to close ASB cases based on a lack of evidence.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and procedures.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 15 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 to recognise inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of ASB. It may deduct the £100 it offered from this total, if already paid to the resident. 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 15 January 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

15 January 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £200 to recognise inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of ASB.

It may deduct the £100 it offered from this total, if already paid to the resident.

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

15 January 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
Compensation for repairs We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £600 it offered for errors in its handling of the repairs. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on an understanding this was/will be paid.
Repairs Considering the resident’s ongoing concerns about repairs to the front door, kitchen window, and boiler, we recommend the landlord contacts him to arrange the outstanding repairs.

Our recommendations

Compensation for repairs

We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £600 it offered for errors in its handling of the repairs. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on an understanding this was/will be paid.

Repairs

Considering the resident’s ongoing concerns about repairs to the front door, kitchen window, and boiler, we recommend the landlord contacts him to arrange the outstanding repairs.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 November 2023	The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the repairs. He said he waited several weeks for a repair to the door. He said he was unhappy with the quality of the repair to the lock. He asked the landlord to reimburse him for using his own contractor to complete the repairs.
14 December 2023	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It gave a history of its repair visits for the front door and kitchen window. It apologised for its handling of the repairs to the window and door. It explained the lock it tried to fit was appropriate, and offered another appointment to fit the lock. It explained it would not reimburse the resident for private contractors as no works had been done, and offered another appointment with a different operative. It offered £100 in compensation for its handling of the repairs. It explained it had been in touch on a weekly basis about the ongoing ASB case.
19 December 2023	The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said he had spoken with the company who made the lock the landlord tried to install and it was not suitable for the door. He said he was unhappy with its offer of compensation.
11 January 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It agreed with the findings of the stage 1 response in relation to the repairs. It said it would reinspect the door and windows to identify any repairs needed. It said it would investigate his concerns about the boiler. It explained the resident did not have permission to complete repairs at the property, so it would not reimburse him for any repairs he did. It asked him to report any repairs needed to it. It said there was a delay in its communication about the ASB case, and gave a history of its recent contact with him about the ASB. It upheld the complaint and offered £700 in compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s compensation offer, the repairs were not done, and the ASB was ongoing.

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 handling of repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

This investigation has focused on the repairs the landlord addressed and committed to completing in its stage 2 complaint response from January 2024. This is limited to the repairs to the front door, windows, and the boiler. The landlord referenced its handling of historic repairs in its stage 2 complaint response (from 2019). We have not investigating its handling of those repairs. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. We have not seen evidence they were prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we have not investigated the complaint about the repairs dating back to 2019.

Front door repair

The landlord was on notice about repairs to the door from 28 September 2023. The landlord attended to inspect the door on 12 October 2023. This was within a reasonable period of the resident’s report.
The landlord accepted there were delays in it replacing the locking mechanism on the door, after its initial inspection in October 2023. It appropriately apologised for attending on 9 November 2023 without the parts needed. The resident was inconvenienced by this. The landlord attended to fit the new lock on 30 November 2023. This was over a month after the resident first reported the issue and an unreasonable delay.
The resident refused the repair to the lock as he believed the landlord tried to use the incorrect lock. We are not commenting on the resident’s reasons for refusing the repair, but this may have impacted on the landlord’s ability to respond. It is not for us to determine whether the lock the landlord tried to install was suitable or not. Our role is to consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. It appropriately set out its position in its stage 1 complaint response that it had asked the lock manufacturer about the suitability of the lock. This is evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously. It showed transparency by explaining the finings of its investigation into the issue.
The landlord appropriately used its stage 2 complaint response to outline its position on the lock it tried to fit, and offered to return to complete the repair. We acknowledge the resident disagreed with its position, but the landlord showed it had investigated his concerns, and gave its position with clarity. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified operatives. It was also appropriate for the landlord to set out its position on reimbursing the resident for repairs. It explained that it was responsible for repairs and would do them. The landlord accepted errors in its handling of the door repair and appropriately offered compensation in its final complaint response.
The landlord committed to completing the door repair in its stage 2 complaint response. Therefore, we have investigated the landlord’s handling of the matter beyond its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord contacted the resident to book the door repairs on 16 January 2024. The information available indicates the resident refused its suggested repair. This impacted on the landlord’s ability to respond. The resident told us the repairs were outstanding and he wanted the landlord to complete the repairs. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to book in the door repairs.

Window repair

As with the door repair, the landlord was on notice about repairs to the window from 28 September 2023. The landlord attended to inspect the window on 12 October 2023. This was within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord accepted it did not follow up on the repair appropriately. This inconvenienced the resident. The landlord appropriately apologised for its handling of the window repair in its stage 1 response.
The landlord has not provided any records it tried to progress with the window repair after its stage 1 complaint response. It failed to learn from the outcomes of its handling of the matter. The resident was further inconvenienced by the delay.
The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to set out its position on the window repair, following an inspection. The landlord committed to resealing and repairing the window as it would not open. It appropriately apologised for the fact the window repairs had not been completed, and offered compensation.
The landlord contacted the resident to book the window repairs on 16 January 2024. The information available indicates the resident refused its suggested repair. This impacted on the landlord’s ability to respond. The resident told us the repairs were outstanding and he wanted the landlord to complete the repairs. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to book in the window repairs.

Boiler repair

The landlord committed to investigating an error code on the resident’s boiler, as part of its stage 2 complaint response. The information available shows the landlord tried to book the repair on 16 January 2024, and the resident refused the repair as he did not agree with the resolution set out in the landlord’s final complaint response. We are not commenting on the resident’s reasons for refusing the repair. But, this impacted on the landlord’s ability to address the issue. As the resident told us the repairs were outstanding, we recommend the landlord contacts him to arrange an inspection of the boiler.

The landlord’s offer of redress for repairs

The landlord offered the resident a total of £700 in compensation in its stage 2 complaint response. It accepted errors in its handling of the repairs, and the ASB. It is not possible to determine how it calculated the compensation against each issue. Considering it only accepted a 2 week delay in its communication for the ASB case, we have apportioned the compensation offered as £600 for repairs, and £100 for ASB. In future, the landlord should give a clear breakdown of how it has calculated compensation to avoid confusion for the resident.
The resident raised concerns with us the landlord’s handling of the repairs impacted on his health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
Our remedies guidance sets out our approach to compensation. It says that up to £600 is appropriate when there was a failure that adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact. The landlord’s offer of compensation for repairs was at the upper end of this scale, which was appropriate to put right the errors in its handling of the repairs.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of ASB
Finding	Service failure

We have investigated the landlord’s handling of ASB in the 12 months leading up to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of November 2023. The resident reported ASB prior to November 2022, but we have not investigated the landlord’s handling of the earlier reports. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. However, there is no evidence the resident raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months. We have not seen evidence he was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate the complaint about the earlier reports of ASB.
The resident also reported an incident of ASB in February 2024, after the landlord issued its final complaint response. We have not investigated the landlord’s handling of the report of ASB that occurred after its final complaint response. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. The resident may want to make a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the more recent ASB. We may then investigate if he remains unhappy after exhausting its complaints process.
This situation was difficult for the resident. We acknowledge that she believes the landlord did not respond appropriately to her ASB reports. It is outside our remit to determine whether the reported behaviour occurred. Our role is to assess the landlord’s response to those reports. We have considered whether its actions met legal and policy obligations and whether they were fair in the circumstances.
The resident reported noise disturbance from his neighbours in November 2022. The landlord did an action plan with the resident, and did a risk assessment. This was in line with its ASB policy and accepted best practice. The landlord also provided diary sheets and signposted the resident to its ASB noise app. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord sought to interview the alleged perpetrators of the noise disturbance, contacted the police, and issued warning letters. This was an appropriate application of its policy and evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
The resident reported noise disturbance and concerns about the welfare of another neighbour in January 2023. Again, the landlord took the appropriate steps of doing an action plan, risk assessment, and signposting to the noise app. The information we have seen shows the situation with the alleged perpetrator from January 2023 was a sensitive one. The landlord sought to engage with the alleged perpetrator, which was appropriate. Due to the sensitivity of the case, we would not expect the landlord to give full details of all its actions to the resident. The alleged perpetrator moved out of the property in March 2023, so the landlord was entitled to close the ASB case. We have not been provided with evidence the landlord advised the resident it was closing the case at the time. He was inconvenienced by this error in its communication.
The landlord’s complaint responses lacked detail about its latest position on the ASB cases and the actions it had taken. Its response focused on its interactions with the resident. While it spoke generally about the need for evidence to progress an ASB case it lacked detail about what investigations it had done. This was inappropriate.
We have seen evidence the landlord failed to update the resident when it closed ASB cases. This was a failing in its communication. It missed an opportunity to put this right by giving a detailed response to his complaint. In line with our remedies guidance, as set out above we have decided the landlord’s offer of £100 in compensation did not fully put things right. We order the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 in compensation on top of its original offer.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. 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 acknowledgement. It provided formal responses at both stages of the process within the timescales set out within its policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

The landlord’s communication about the repairs was poor. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
1. let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits
2. gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory.
In this case, the records do not show if the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of repairs. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord’s repairs and maintenance team followed our spotlight report recommendations.
The landlord’s communication in the ASB case was also poor. While it evidenced it responded to the resident’s contact, it failed to notify him when it was closing ASB cases and did not communicate agreed actions plans to him.
In future the landlord should give a breakdown of how it has calculated compensation for its admitted errors. This may avoid confusion for the resident.