Community Gateway Association Limited (202300470)

Decision
Case ID	202300470
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Community Gateway Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	18 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat. He wanted to move to a larger property better suited to his medical needs. He complained to the landlord that it had not taken these needs into account when processing his application to a lettings scheme. He also complained about how its staff had treated him. He was unhappy with its final response to his complaint and asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Processing of the resident’s application to a lettings scheme.
   2. Response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s processing of the resident’s application to a lettings scheme.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
   3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
5. We have not made orders for the landlord.

Summary of reasons

Processing of the resident’s application to a lettings scheme

6. The landlord took the resident’s medical conditions into account and processed his application in line with the allocations policy for the lettings scheme.

 

Response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct

7. The landlord carried out a fair and proportionate investigation into the resident’s concerns in which it found its staff had offered him support and treated him appropriately.

Handling of the complaint

8. The landlord processed the complaint in line with its complaints policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between January 2023 and May 2023	The resident applied to a choice based lettings scheme. The landlord offered him advice and support with operating the online bidding system. It visited him at his home in May 2023 to discuss his concerns about the suitability of his current property. Following this visit, it issued him with a formal written warning for using abusive language towards staff.
Between June 2023 and February 2024	The landlord obtained an interim injunction against the resident in June 2023 after he sent it a threatening email. It decided in February 2024 not to pursue a permanent injunction.
29 April 2024	The landlord advised the resident it had assigned him Band B priority status for the lettings scheme, backdated to January 2023.
Between July 2024 and October 2024	The resident asked to escalate a stage 1 complaint response he received in April 2023 to stage 2. The landlord said too much time had passed to escalate the complaint but it would raise a new stage 1 complaint. It did not know what the resident’s current concerns were so made attempts to engage with him and clarify this.
17 October 2024	The landlord confirmed with the resident that his complaint was: That it had not taken his medical needs into account when processing his application to the lettings scheme. About the conduct of a staff member during the application process. That it had failed in its duty of care to him. That it had treated him less favourably due to his male gender. That all of the above had led to a deterioration in his physical health.
30 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint. It said: It took his medical needs into account when it awarded him Band B priority status for a one-bedroom property. It found no evidence the staff member complained about had failed to support the resident during the application process. It had not failed in its duty of care to him. It had awarded him Band B status in recognition of his need to move to a more suitable property. It found no evidence it had treated him less favourably due to gender. It was sorry he felt his current property was affecting his physical health. Its Allocations Team could assist him with identifying and bidding on suitable properties through the lettings scheme
30 October 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint as he was unhappy with its response to all complaint issues.
1 November 2024	The landlord acknowledged the escalation request.
22 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the complaint. It upheld its findings in its stage 1 response. It said: It awarded the Band B status in line with the allocations policy for the lettings scheme. This priority status recognised his medical needs. It had reviewed its records again and found no evidence of discrimination or inappropriate conduct by staff. It had offered him a variety of support options and was keen to offer him further support to address his concerns. It advised him to seek medical advice in relation to his health.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint. He said it was discriminating against him due to his gender and that in assessing his living conditions, it had not paid due regard to his medical needs.

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	Processing of the resident’s application to a lettings scheme
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not looked at

9. The resident complained that the landlord’s processing of his application and treatment towards him had an adverse impact on his health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any harm he considers he has been 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 can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by any failures we identify, but have not investigated the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health.

What we looked at

10. When the resident initially applied to the choice based lettings scheme, he was not awarded priority banding. He provided the landlord with evidence about his medical conditions, which included diabetes and mental health issues, and asked it to review the banding. The landlord appropriately reviewed this evidence and as a result, awarded him Band B status, which it reasonably backdated to the date of his initial application.
11. The resident indicated in his complaint correspondence that the landlord should have granted him Band A status. The landlord explained to him in its complaint responses that it applied the allocations policy when determining his banding. Band B is a priority status. The policy states that it is suitable for residents with a “moderately urgent / high need to move” due to severe, long term, medical conditions.
12. The resident also complained to the landlord that he wanted priority for a 2-bedroom property, not just a 1-bedroom property. It appropriately explained in its complaint responses that if the resident wanted priority for a larger property, he would need to provide medical evidence demonstrating there was a need for this. This was in line with the allocations policy.
13. When the resident first applied to the lettings scheme, he told the landlord he did not know how to use the online bidding system. The landlord offered to attend his property and show him how it worked, but he did not accept the offer. It made numerous more offers, including in its complaint responses, to assist the resident with identifying and bidding for properties. That it continued to offer this support to the resident was good practice.
14. Overall, we have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s processing of the resident’s application to the lettings scheme. It processed the application in line with the allocations policy and offered the resident appropriate support.

Complaint	Response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not looked at

15. Within his complaint the resident suggested the landlord had breached the Equality Act 2010 by discriminating against him on grounds of his gender. He also told us the landlord discriminated against him due to his race and disability. We have not investigated this as section 114 (1) of the Equality Act 2010 gives the County Court the jurisdiction to decide if there has been discrimination or other prohibited conduct. We do not have the same ability to make a binding decision that discrimination has occurred. We have, however, considered whether the landlord duly considered the resident’s complaint about staff conduct and if it provided a fair response.

What we looked at

16. The resident complained that a member of the landlord’s staff (Officer 1) had not supported him when he was applying to the lettings scheme and treated him less favourably as he was male. As part of the landlord’s stage 1 investigation, the complaint handler interviewed Officer 1 and reviewed all records it held of her interactions with the resident. The complaint handler also reviewed evidence the resident provided as part of his defence to the injunction proceedings. This was because he told the landlord during its complaint investigation that his defence statement set out the reasons for his complaint.
17. The stage 1 complaint handler found no evidence that Officer 1 had treated the resident less favourably or failed to support him in registering for the lettings scheme. The stage 2 complaint handler also reviewed all information held and reached the same conclusion.
18. In our view, the landlord’s investigation was proportionate and its conclusions were fair. Its records show that Officer 1 and another staff member (Officer 2) visited the resident in May 2023. During the visit they inspected the property and discussed the resident’s concerns about its suitability given his health needs. He explained there was not enough space in the kitchen for him to cook and prepare food that met his dietary needs. Officer 1 wrote to the resident after the visit and offered to explore the option of fitting an additional cupboard in the kitchen. She suggested this would free up some worktop space which could mitigate the impact of the kitchen size while the resident was awaiting a move. This was a reasonable suggestion. However, the resident declined the offer.
19. According to the landlord’s records of the May 2023 home visit, the resident was verbally abusive to Officers 1 and 2. He explained he was frustrated as he felt the landlord was not doing enough to recognise his medical needs. He advised that he frequently got angry and shouted due to his diabetes. In response to this explanation, Officers 1 and 2 reasonably advised him:
    1. That if he recognised he was getting angry, he should end calls or stop speaking with the staff members involved. They explained the landlord adopted a zero tolerance approach to staff abuse and would be issuing him with a written warning for his behaviour. This position was in line with the landlord’s unreasonable behaviour policy and the tenancy agreement.
    2. That he should speak with his GP. They also offered to refer him to support services, which was good practice, but he declined.
    3. That they would ask its outreach team to review the support it was giving him. The outreach team had previously assigned the resident a support worker, but he told Officers 1 and 2 he did not have a good relationship with that support worker. The week after the home visit, a support worker visited the resident and checked he could operate the website for the lettings scheme.
20. We acknowledge that the resident felt that Officer 1 was unsupportive. However, for the reasons set out above, we are satisfied that she offered an appropriate level of support.
21. Within his complaint correspondence, the resident cited the fact the landlord brought injunction proceedings against him, as evidence its staff were treating him unfavourably. The landlord initiated the injunction proceedings in June 2023, the month after the home visit and formal warning, as it received a threatening email from the resident. Within the email the resident said his blood sugars were low and he was imagining killing and committing extreme violence against the landlord’s staff.
22. During the injunction proceedings the landlord carried out an equality exercise in which it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and that his behaviour was affected by his medical conditions. It considered all the support it had offered him. This included, “numerous offers of mental health referrals [which were] all declined”, as well as advising him to consult medical professionals about managing his diabetes. It reasonably concluded that it was proportionate to obtain the injunction to ensure the resident did not carry out the threats. Its application was supported by the police. We are satisfied the landlord’s decision to seek an injunction was fair and proportionate in the circumstances.
23. The resident also suggested in his complaint correspondence that the landlord’s later decision not to pursue a permanent injunction, was evidence its initial application was unfounded. We have reviewed its reasons which do not support this suggestion. The court had already decided there was merit in the original application, which was why it granted the interim injunction. The court did not consider the merits of an application for a permanent injunction, but instead agreed to the landlord’s request to discontinue proceedings. In other words, there was no decision by the court the case was unfounded.
24. One of the reasons the landlord recorded for discontinuing the proceedings was that it was concerned a permanent injunction would affect the resident’s chances of being able to move. It was satisfied that he had been complying with the terms of the interim injunction, so partly made the decision not to pursue the permanent injunction in his interests. This was a reasonable, proportionate and resident-focussed decision.
25. Given all of the above, we are satisfied there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

26. In July 2024 the landlord told the resident it would not escalate a stage 1 complaint to stage 2 as 15 months had passed since it issued the stage 1 response. This was in line with its complaints policy which gave residents up to 15 working days after receiving the stage 1 response to request a stage 2 review.
27. The landlord appropriately suggested that it would instead raise a new stage 1 complaint. It explained to the resident that it did not know what his current concerns were. It therefore made numerous attempts between July 2024 and October 2024 to engage with him and, on his request, his solicitor in order to clarify this. This was appropriate as it needed to know what the complaint was about before it could determine if it fell within the scope of its complaints policy and before it could investigate it.
28. Once the landlord had clarified with the resident what the complaint was about, it processed it in line with its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). For example:
    1. It issued an acknowledgement email at both stages in which it set out its understanding of the complaint and the outcomes sought.
    2. It issued its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement and its stage 2 response within 15 working days of its acknowledgement. This was in keeping with the response timeframes set out in its complaints policy.
    3. It carried out thorough complaint investigations, which included attempting to speak with the resident, speaking with the staff member complained about and reviewing its records. This enabled it to address all aspects of the complaint in its responses.
    4. It offered the resident support with identifying and bidding for properties, even though it had not upheld his complaint about its processing of his application. This demonstrated it was considering the resident’s wider needs. It also appropriately advised him to seek medical advice if his health was deteriorating.
29. Given this, we have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

30. The landlord demonstrated good practice in offering the resident a range of support and signposting advice prior to and during the complaints process. This meant that rather than just address the complaint, it considered and attempted to address the underlying reasons for it, which was good practice.