Uttlesford District Council (202422617)

Decision
Case ID	202422617
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Uttlesford District Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	19 December 2025

Background

The resident has been a tenant at the landlord’s property since July 2023. She lives there with her 3 children, one of whom has severe special needs. Shortly after moving in, she started to report repair issues including problems with the property fence, the toilet, oil heating and leaks. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response and made several complaints.

What the complaint is about

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports about an oil leak repair and issues with the heating system.
2. Reports about other repairs including to the property fence, gate and toilet.
3. Complaint.

Our decisions (determinations)

We found:
1. Maladministration in its handling of an oil leak repair and heating system.
2. Maladministration in its handling other repairs, including to the property fence, gate and toilet.
3. Service failure in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Oil leak and heating

The landlord failed to respond to all the issues the resident raised about her concerns (safety and otherwise) connected to the positioning of the oil tank and its piping, leaving the issue unresolved and prolonging the distress for the resident who was concerned about her vulnerable child.

Other repairs

The landlord attended to some repairs but failed to acknowledge any delays or, in relation to the fence and gate or toilet replacement, provide adequate explanations for its approach or resolve the issues in a timely manner.

Complaint handling

The landlord failed to comply with its complaint timeframe for providing a response at stage 2 of its process.

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	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the oil tank and boiler. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the position of the oil tank and boiler and confirms that they are in the correct position to enable the flow of oil to the boiler. It should produce a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether the oil tank and the positioning of its piping is safe for the resident and her child in its current position and whether it would be appropriate to dig a trench (if it has not already done so) to place the piping underground or whether it would be advisable to move the oil tank. It should identify any hazards, with particular attention to the circumstances of the resident’s particular household and her child’s needs. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 23 January 2026
2	Specific action order The landlord must liaise with the resident about the costs she said she incurred through the oil tank leaks. It must respond to her requests for compensation in line with its relevant policies.	No later than 23 January 2026.
3	Specific action order The landlord must liaise with the resident about the fencing repairs at the property. If it continues to consider the repairs are rechargeable it should explain why it has changed its original position on that. It must also provide an explanation for the delays in resolving the issues the resident reported with the toilet. It should take steps to resolve the issue as soon as possible and no later than the due date.	No later than 23 January 2026.
4	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £575 made up as follows: – £300 for its failure to show it has resolved the resident’s concerns about the positioning of the oil tank and/boiler and associated safety concerns about the piping. – £200 for its failure to respond appropriately to the resident’s request for repairs to the property fencing and gate or toilet. – £75 for its complaint handling failures. The landlord must provide evidence of payment, direct to the resident, by the due date.	No later than 23 January 2026.

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Inspection order

The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the oil tank and boiler. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed.

If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.

What the inspection must achieve

The landlord must ensure that the surveyor:

Inspects the position of the oil tank and boiler and confirms that they are in the correct position to enable the flow of oil to the boiler. It should produce a written report with photographs.

The survey report must set out:

Whether the oil tank and the positioning of its piping is safe for the resident and her child in its current position and whether it would be appropriate to dig a trench (if it has not already done so) to place the piping underground or whether it would be advisable to move the oil tank. It should identify any hazards, with particular attention to the circumstances of the resident’s particular household and her child’s needs.
Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible.
A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible).
The likely timescales to commence and complete the work.

Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.

No later than

23 January 2026

Specific action order

The landlord must liaise with the resident about the costs she said she incurred through the oil tank leaks. It must respond to her requests for compensation in line with its relevant policies.

No later than

23 January 2026.

Specific action order

The landlord must liaise with the resident about the fencing repairs at the property. If it continues to consider the repairs are rechargeable it should explain why it has changed its original position on that.

It must also provide an explanation for the delays in resolving the issues the resident reported with the toilet. It should take steps to resolve the issue as soon as possible and no later than the due date.

No later than

23 January 2026.

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £575 made up as follows:

– £300 for its failure to show it has resolved the resident’s concerns about the positioning of the oil tank and/boiler and associated safety concerns about the piping.

– £200 for its failure to respond appropriately to the resident’s request for repairs to the property fencing and gate or toilet.

– £75 for its complaint handling failures.

The landlord must provide evidence of payment, direct to the resident, by the due date.

No later than

23 January 2026.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 February 2024	In February 2024 she reported issues with the heating and oil tank.
25 March 2024	The resident complained. She said: On 23 March 2024, an operative closed the fuel line from the oil tank. She said this meant she had no heating or hot water. She said she had 2 young children, was pregnant and was in a cold house. Another operative had told her the oil tank was too far away from the property and should be positioned higher than the boiler.
9 April 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response it said: It had arranged a heating inspection. It would make enquiries about the position of the oil tank. It had placed a cage around the oil tank which would protect the oil line, which had been damaged.
10 April 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She provided more context. She said: She had been asking for help for some time but had been “ignored”. She had incurred costs because of the oil leaks and had repeatedly asked for the tank to be moved. Placing a cage around it would not reduce the risk of damage. The property was not suitable for her child and his needs. She also said she had been asking for fencing and for the toilet to be replaced since moving in in 2023 but had recently learnt that no repairs had been raised. On the same date, the resident also raised a separate formal complaint about the fencing, gate and toilet. She said the fencing was unsafe for her son. She said his sensory overload meant he was constantly trying to escape and had recently injured himself doing so.
11 April 2024	The landlord replied to 10 April 2024 correspondence from the resident’s MP, asking it to complete repairs. It said: It had instructed contractors to attend the property on multiple occasions before realizing the damage was caused by the resident’s child. It had instructed contractors to put a protective guard over the filter and enquired about moving the oil tank. It said the case was complicated by the fact that the resident was struggling to cope because of her child’s needs, saying that the home was not suitable for the “assured safety of her son”.
22 April 2024	The landlord provided a separate stage 1 complaint to the issues the resident had raised about the property fence/gate and toilet. It said it would repair the fencing, would investigate repairs to the gate and would be in contact about the toilet/drainage issues.
20 May 2024	The resident sent the landlord a list of outstanding repairs. These included the oil tank, the toilet and fence repair and a list of “new repairs”, including issues with the property flooring.
13 June 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It referred to the resident’s 20 May 2024 repairs list and set out what it had done or planned to do against each point.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate as she said that she had not been contacted about the oil tank or the toilet replacement and some repairs had not been completed.

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	Handling of an oil leak repair and heating system.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s stage 1 April 2024 response to the resident’s March 2024 complaint was reasonable. It said it:
1. Had made an appointment to fix her immersion heater the following day.
2. Would check her heating system to ensure there were no faults.
3. Would make enquiries about relocating the oil tank.
4. Had put protective measures around the piping to make it safe.
It responded to the issues raised and complied with its repairs policy to ensure that its essential services were in proper working order and safe for residents to use.
However, when the resident escalated her complaint the next day, she set out a number of concerns that the landlord then failed to address in its June 2024 stage 2 response. These were:
1. The pipe from the oil tank had been damaged “before” she moved to the property.
2. An operative had said the piping should be placed underground so that her child could not reach it but this had not happened. (She explained her child had complex needs and “no sense of danger”). She said she had asked for extra supports to be attached along the piping to secure it but this request had been ignored.
3. Because of the “massive amounts of leaks” from the oil tank she had had to pay £500 for replacement oil. She sought compensation for that and for fencing she said she had installed that had been damaged by the oil leaks.
4. Since contractors put a cage around the filters near the boiler, (the 4 April 2024 repair the landlord had referred to in its complaint response), her child was “constantly pulling at it.”
The landlord’s failure to respond to the above points meant the resident’s complaint was not resolved. Further, the resident’s concern that the protective measures that the landlord had taken actually increased the risk of damage to the pipes was something that should have been addressed as a safety concern.
This was especially the case because the landlord, from 10 April 2023, accepted there were safety issues at the property for the resident and her child. It had, following further correspondence from the resident on that date – and a visit to the property – informed her MP that it considered the accommodation was unsuitable and that a housing needs risk assessment should be carried out. This was not solely related to the oil tank issue but showed that the landlord understood the resident needed support. In those circumstances it would have been appropriate to follow up these issues as a priority.
However, at the time of the stage 2 response in June 2024, the landlord’s enquiries about the oil tank were “still outstanding”. It did not apologise for failing to contact the resident about this. Instead, it said it would be in contact about placing a sleeve over the pipeline. There is no evidence the landlord did this or contacted her about relocating the oil tank or the position of the boiler. There is some evidence that a quote was agreed to dig a trench for piping but it is not clear that this went ahead and the landlord did not refer to it in its stage 2 response, leaving the complaint unresolved.
Given the resident’s safety concerns and the challenges the landlord accepted she faced, its failure to communicate effectively or follow up on enquires on these issues, was a serious failing and caused the resident avoidable distress and frustration.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will undertake urgent responsive repairs within 5 working days. It should consider prioritising repairs where it is aware of a household’s vulnerabilities. Even if the landlord did not consider the work on the oil tank/line urgent, its policy states that routine responsive repairs should be undertaken within 20 working days, a timeframe which its available records do not indicate was met.
Overall, while the landlord placed a protective cage around the filters near the oil tank, it did not respond to the resident’s claim that this did not resolve the safety of the pipe or to the other issues she had raised connected to the oil tank within its policy timeframe or at all.

Complaint	Other repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

In the resident’s May 2024 list of outstanding repairs, she reported new repair issues. These were not part of her original complaint and were therefore service requests. The landlord responded to some of these requests under the title “New Repairs” in its stage 2 response and the resident has disputed some of what the landlord said about those issues, including repairs to the property flooring and a repair to the back door. However, as these issues have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, we have not investigated them here.

What we have investigated

On 10 April 2024 the resident complained about fencing/gate and toilet repairs, outstanding since mid-2023. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 22 April 2024. It said:
1. A replacement fence would be installed in the 2024/25 financial year. It said a contractor had contacted the resident on 6 May 2024 to confirm the fencing installation and to address any issues the resident had with the gate.
2. The landlord had requested a quotation to replace the toilet and attached drainage system. It would contact her to arrange the works.
In May 2024 the resident said that the toilet issue had still not been resolved and that the fence had not been fixed.
At stage 2, the landlord said:
1. It was looking into the main drain as a source of a blockage. It said when it had ensured that the drainage was functioning correctly, it would install a new toilet.
2. The fence had been struck by a vehicle and any repairs would be rechargeable.
This response failed to acknowledge that the landlord had previously said it had obtained a quote to replace the toilet and drainage system. It failed to respond to the resident’s claim that she had been asking for this issue to be resolved since she moved in. This meant that it remained unresolved, with no apology or clear explanation, or updated communication about the steps the landlord may have been taking since July 2023.
In relation to the fence repair, the landlord had previously said (in its 22 April stage 1 response), that it would replace the fence. Its records show that discussions were underway to install a new fence and a quote had been approved on 15 April 2024.
However, in its stage 2 response, it failed to explain why it had now determined the fence damage was caused by a car or why the resident would be recharged for any repair. Since this represented a significant change of approach to her complaint, the landlord’s response was confusing and inappropriate. It also failed to recognise what the resident had been saying about the risk the fragility of the fence caused to her vulnerable child, who she said had been caused injury escaping through it. This was unsympathetic and a missed opportunity to provide support.
In the landlord’s response to our enquiries it identified failings in its service. It said these were largely attributable to contractor issues. If that were the case, it should have explained and apologised for those failings in its complaint responses, which it failed to do. While we have found clear service failures in this case, the landlord did not identify these in its complaint responses and other than saying it would arrange works (with no accompanying action plans), it did not provide any appropriate explanations or remedies for the alleged delays.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process that is in line with our Complaint Handling Code, (the Code). 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.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 2 days and responded within 10 working days. However, it took 44 working days to provide a formal response at stage 2. This was a failure to meet its own and our timeframes and was a service failure. The landlord did not apologise for this delay or offer any compensation in line with its compensation policy.

Learning

Our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights, emphasises the importance of adopting a human-centric, sensitive, and tailored service to residents, such as making appropriate referrals to partner agencies. We understand that the landlord did not make a safeguarding referral in this case. It says this was because it was aware the resident already had a social worker. This should not have stopped it alerting agencies to its concerns with the aim of coordinating to achieve the best outcomes for the resident and her family. This would have been acting in line with its duty under the Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023 guidance.