Milton Keynes City Council (202342696)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342696

Milton Keynes City Council

15 December 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. report of a leak from the flat above, and the subsequent report of damp and mould
2. request to decorate the property following the flat leak
3. request to make good the garden and install a higher fence
4. request to replace a pane of glass in the patio door
5. request to repair a trip hazard on a front path
6. request to repair issues with his front fire door after installation
7. report of 2 external bricks being left facing the wrong way follow a repair
8. request for a copy of an inspection report following an inspection in April 2024
9. concerns about the staff members conduct
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council and lives in a one-bedroom ground floor flat.
In June 2023 the resident reported that water droplets were coming through his ceiling. On 11 September 2023 the resident raised his first complaint with the landlord. This covered issues about the leak, the staff member’s conduct, the state of the garden, issues with patio slabs, and his fence. On 17 October 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, it did not uphold the complaint.
The resident escalated his complaint on 20 November 2023. He said that the landlord had failed to say how his flat would be put right once the leak was fixed. It also failed to mention the garden and the staff member’s conduct. In addition, he wanted to add to the complaint about a pane of glass that needed to be replaced in the patio door.
On 29 December 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It:
1. apologised for the resident needing to complain
2. confirmed the leak had been resolved
3. said it would issue a £75 decoration voucher
4. attended on 31 October 2023 to undertake work on the mould and water damaged areas
5. confirmed no work would be conducted to the patio door as there were no issues with the glass
6. said the fence was in line with other fencing so no alterations would be made
7. would not conduct work to the garden as this was the resident’s responsibility
On 28 March 2024 the resident raised a second complaint about issues with the installation of a front fire door and external brickwork. A stage 1 complaint response was sent on 13 June 2024. The landlord confirmed that repairs to brickwork were made on 2 May 2024, and it had conducted snagging repairs to the fire door on 30 May 2024.
After referring his complaint to the Ombudsman, we asked the landlord that some complaints be consolidated into a final response. This final stage 2 response was issued on 13 November 2024, the landlord said:
1. the leaks, glass in the patio window, garden and mismatched windows were dealt with in its first stage 2 complaint response issued on 29 December 2023
2. the installation of the front fire door was dealt with in the stage 1 complaint response issued on 13 June 2024 and it had nothing further to add
3. it had not received any reports about a trip hazard, and the resident should report this if it remains outstanding
4. there were no outstanding repair issues at the time of issuing the stage 2 complaint response
5. it considered it had acted fairly and dealt with the repairs and the resident’s complaint within the appropriate timescales
The resident originally referred his complaint to us on 24 March 2024. At the time the resident among other things, requested the landlord to provide him with a new staff member, reimburse him for repairing 2 rooms, replace the patio pane of glass and install a higher fence.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

We understand that the resident has raised repairs and further complaints with the landlord’s since his referral to the Ombudsman. However, in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is focussed on the issues raised during the resident’s first formal complaint and the consolidated list of complaints we asked the landlord to review. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint or are not included in the complaint definition above can either be addressed with the landlord directly and progressed as a new formal complaint. If the resident has already received a stage 2 complaint response for any ‘new’ issues, then he can contact us to open a new case if he remains unhappy.
Although it is noted that there is a history of repair reports made by the resident, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of repairs from 1 June 2023 to 13 November 2024. This is because it is this period that was investigated by the landlord during its complaint process.
Any new issues that are not the focus of this investigation should be raised as a new complaint with the landlord. The resident can then refer the complaint to us as a new case if he remains unhappy following the stage 2 complaint response.

Leak from flat above and subsequent damp and mould

The landlords repair policy sets out that it will complete routine repairs within 28 days. It’s damp and mould policy says it will conduct an inspection within 14 days to assess the issue, if needed conduct a mould wash within the same timeframe, and complete the necessary repairs.
The landlord’s actions following the resident’s initial repair report on 7 June 2023 were reasonable. This is because:
1. it contacted appropriate third parties within 48 hours to establish who owned the flat above the resident, and it confirmed the flat was a leasehold property with a different landlord
2. it contacted the leaseholder about the potential leak, and advised the resident to come back to it after a week if the issue had not stopped
3. following the water company attending the resident and leaseholder’s flat, the landlord asked the resident for an update who confirmed the dripping had stopped
As the leak was coming from a leasehold property the landlord did not have repair obligations for the inside of the flat. It communicated regularly with the resident about the situation and contacted appropriate third parties to notify the leaseholder of the issue.
The resident reported that the dripping had started again on 23 June 2023 and that the issue had the potential to cause damage if it was not fixed. The landlord raised a damp and mould case alongside the leak repair. It attended to conduct an inspection on 4 July 2023. This was within its 14-day timescale set out in its damp and mould policy and was reasonable.
Following the inspection, the landlord confirmed that the leak was likely coming from the flat above. It contacted the relevant team to follow up with the leaseholder. On 17 July 2023 the leaseholder confirmed that they had arranged their own plumber to try and find the leak, but they were unsuccessful. The leaseholder invited the landlord to send its own team to investigate the leak if required.
While the landlord’s actions in contacting the leaseholder were reasonable, the failure to keep the resident updated was not. Its repair policy says that it will “communicate effectively if there are unavoidable delays”. In this instance the landlord failed to provide the resident with any updates after 17 July 2023. This caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
The resident raised a further report on 29 August 2023 as there were damp patches on his bedroom and bathroom ceilings and walls. The landlord attended on 30 August 2023 and booked some follow-on work to treat the damp on 15 September 2023. These actions were in line with its damp and mould policy timeframes. This was reasonable.
On 25 September 2023 the resident reported that dripping was again coming from the flat above which would likely cause damage such as damp to return. The landlord confirmed internally that the leaseholder had agreed for them to attend the flat above and investigate the leak. This was arranged with the leaseholder for the earliest available date of 6 October 2023. The landlord’s action was reasonable as it acted promptly to deal with the leak following the resident’s report.
The landlord also arranged for a mould wash at the resident’s property and a damp and mould inspection. It completed the works within its policy timeframes which was reasonable.
On 6 October 2023 the landlord attended the leaseholder’s property and confirmed to the leaseholder the likely cause of the leak. A repair was completed by the leaseholder in late October 2023. Following this, the landlord completed some mould treatment on 31 October 2023 to the affected areas. These actions were reasonable and followed the landlord’s repair policy timeframes.
Despite the actions in September and October 2023 being reasonable, the landlord’s communication was poor. The resident had to chase the landlord for updates on 3 different occasions before an update was provided on the actions it had taken. This does not align with the landlord’s policy of communicating effectively.
While there were some positive actions by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports, there was a failing between 17 July and 25 September 2023. The leaseholder confirmed to the landlord in July 2023 that they had been unable to detect the leak and invited it to attend. However, the resident made 2 further reports before the landlord arranged to visit the leasehold property. The time taken to arrange a visit to the leasehold property when it knew the leaseholder had not found the cause of the leak was unreasonable. This caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience. This coupled with the landlord’s ineffective communication as highlighted above amounts to maladministration.
When considering a remedy we understand there were some mitigating factors for these issues. The leak was coming from a leasehold property that the landlord was not responsible for. This meant that there were some complications in resolving the resident’s issue. The landlord took positive actions in dealing with damp and mould issues within its policy timeframes. It also contacted the leaseholder after each report of the leak to try and resolve the repair.
However, the landlord did take longer than necessary to arrange a visit to the leaseholders property and failed to communicate effectively with the resident. These failings did cause a detriment that adversely affected the resident. Our remedies guidance says that where this happens, but there has been no permanent impact a payment of between £100 to £600 should be considered.
Taking all the circumstances into account, we consider a payment of £200 fairly recognises the landlord’s failings and the impact this had, while also factoring in the mitigating factors.

Request to decorate the property following the leak

The landlord’s policy for repairs says that it is a tenant who is responsible for internal decoration. This includes papering, woodwork, coving, and painting.
As part of the resident’s formal complaint dated 11 September 2023, he raised that it was unfair for him to be responsible for the cost of decorating. The landlord completed the leak repair and told the resident that it would raise a decoration voucher if this was something he was interested in. The landlord then requested a decoration voucher worth £75 to assist in the internal decoration.
The actions of the landlord were reasonable. The resident was told that he was responsible for internal decorations, and this is in line with the landlord’s repair policy. The landlord provided the resident with a voucher as a goodwill gesture to assist in the decoration. Therefore, there was no maladministration for this complaint.

Request to make good the garden and install a higher fence

In his first formal complaint the resident raised the issue of his garden and the installation of a higher fence. The landlord responded in its stage 2 complaint response and confirmed that the resident was responsible for the garden, and the fence would not be replaced as it was in line with other fencing.
The resident repeated requests for the landlord to make the garden good and to install higher fencing several times between September 2023 and November 2024. However, each time the landlord reiterated that the resident was responsible for the garden, and the fence would not be altered.
The landlord’s repair policy and the tenant handbook both say that the resident is responsible for gardens. The tenant handbook also says that the landlord will only complete ‘minor’ repairs to fences and gates. Therefore, the response provided by the landlord was reasonable and there was no maladministration for this complaint.

Request to replace a pane of glass

The resident raised a repair report for the glass in his patio door on 16 October 2023. The landlord attended the repair on 3 November 2023 and logged that the glass was fine, and no work was required. This was reasonable and within the landlord’s 28-day repair timescale.
As part of the resident’s stage 2 escalation he said that he was waiting for the glass to be replaced in his patio door. The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that it would not replace the glass as the units previously installed were still working correctly. This was a fair and reasonable response based on the assessment of the operative who attended on 3 November 2023.
Following further requests by the resident regarding the different colour of the glass, the landlord arranged for a regional manager to conduct an inspection in April 2024. The landlord used its discretion to replace the glass with 2 matching panes. In May 2024 it asked it’s glazing contractor to provide a price for replacement. On 10 July 2024, once the relevant materials were obtained by the contractor, the glass was replaced. It has been noted the resident disputes the works occurred and as such a recommendation will be made to inspect the resident’s window panes and any required works.
The evidence shows there was no repair obligation on the landlord as it was confirmed at various inspections there was no issue with the glass panes. Despite this, once the regional manager was involved it acted fairly by using its discretion to deal with the resident’s issue and replaced the glass. Therefore, taking all the circumstances into account there was no maladministration.

Request to repair a trip hazard

In its stage 2 complaint response dated 13 November 2024, the landlord said that the resident had not reported any repairs relating to a trip hazard on the front path. The landlord confirmed to us that it could not find records of the resident reporting such a repair.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 November 2024. He advised that an inspector came, and a repair should have included a trip hazard on the path by his front door.
As the landlord has confirmed in its complaint response and to us that it had no record of the resident raising this repair, this was unreasonable. The landlord’s actions did not align with its repair policy which says it will make it “easy to report repairs, with a range of reporting routes”. By failing to record this repair and deal with the issue the resident was frustrated and caused unnecessary inconvenience. In addition, the resident has told us that this trip hazard is still in need of repair. Therefore, taking all the circumstances into account this amounts to maladministration.
The failures of the landlord have had an adverse impact on the resident. From reviewing his communication with the landlord following the stage 2 complaint response, he expressed his frustration that the repair had not been recorded. In addition, he advised the landlord that the trip hazard was still there as of his reply on 9 December 2024.
When looking at all the circumstances we consider a payment of £100 is fair and in line with our remedy guidance. This considers the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident, but also that the repair was an external repair outside of the resident’s home which does mitigate the impact.

Request to repair issues with the resident’s front fire door after installation

The landlord installed a new fire door on 13 March 2024. The same day the resident contacted the landlord to say that the door had not been installed correctly. He said that despite a supervisor signing the door off, there were various issues with the door. After the resident’s report the landlord arranged for an inspection which took place on 2 April 2024 and identified some snagging issues with the installation. The issues identified by the inspection were completed on 30 May 2024.
The actions of the landlord were unreasonable. This is because the time taken to complete an inspection and then complete the follow-on repairs fell outside of its routine repair timescales. In addition, the communication with the resident about these repairs fell short. The resident had to chase the landlord on 29 May 2024 to ask for an update following the inspection as he had not heard anything back. This failure to be proactive in its communication around repairs increased the distress and inconvenience felt by the resident.
In summary, the time taken to complete the inspection and repair of 78 days, alongside the failure to effectively communicate adversely effected the resident. The landlord did not recognise this failure in its complaint handling. However, once the snagging repairs were completed, then this inconvenience and frustration ended. Taking all the circumstances into account this amounts to maladministration. We consider a payment of £100 compensation to be a fair as this acknowledges both the impact to the resident and any mitigating factors.

Report of 2 external bricks

On 13 March 2024 the resident reported that a repair to some external brickwork was required. The landlord attended this job and relayed 2 bricks on 27 March 2024. This was reasonable and was within its 28-day repair timescale.
The resident raised a complaint on 28 March 2024 that the bricks were not laid correctly. On 2 May 2024 the landlord attended and neatened the external bricks up. This was outside of the landlord’s 28-day repair timescale and caused the resident some inconvenience.
On 14 and 29 May 2024 the resident continued to report that the bricks had been laid the wrong way around. However, in its second stage 1 complaint response dated 13 June 2024 the landlord stated that the brickwork had been rectified. This stance was repeated in its second stage 2 complaint response dated 13 November 2024.
While the resident maintains that the brickwork has not been laid correctly, this is not shown within the landlord’s repair records. We have received photos of the brickwork undertaken and there is no clear evidence to say that the bricks are the wrong way around. Despite this, the time taken between March and May 2024 to return and neaten the bricks was outside of the landlord’s timescale and caused the resident inconvenience. Taking all the circumstances into account, this was service failure. The resident disputed the completion of the works. As such, a recommendation will be made for the landlord to conduct a post inspection of any works carried out.
When there has been a service failure that lasted a short duration and did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident, our guidance says a payment of between £50 and £100 should be considered. Therefore, we consider a payment of £50 is a fair remedy for the inconvenience caused.

Request for a copy of the inspection report

On 16 April 2024 the resident asked for a copy of a recently completed inspection report. He repeated this request on 7, 14 and 29 May 2024, 14 June 2024 and 16 September 2024. However, the landlord has never provided the resident with a copy of the inspection report, nor has it provided an explanation why.
The failure to provide a copy of the inspection report despite the resident requesting this 6 times was unreasonable and caused the resident some distress and inconvenience. This did not align with the landlord’s repair policy commitment to provide effective communication and was a missed opportunity to build back some trust. Therefore, this was maladministration.
We consider a payment of £150 to be fair as the evidence shows the resident was adversely affected by the landlord’s failure to provide the report. He was put to unnecessary time and trouble and has told us he has yet to receive a copy of the report. This amount also considers that there has been no permanent impact to the resident as the inspection report from April 2024 highlighted recommendations which the landlord’s repair records show were all completed.

Concerns about a staff members conduct

As part of his complaint to the landlord the resident said that a staff member had been hard to get in touch with and had failed to deal with the issues and repairs, he had raised.
Despite the resident raising issues concerning a staff member there is no evidence to show it properly investigated this issue. In its stage 2 complaint response dated 29 December 2023, the only mention of this issue was brief. The landlord said it contacted a senior manager who confirmed that the staff member was “an experienced officer who continues to try to work with you and support you with any concerns you have raised”.
In its second stage 2 complaint response the landlord said, “I cannot find any issues regarding communications or delays or inaction in responding to the issues you have raised.”
The landlord has not provided any evidence to show what, if any, investigation was conducted to assess all the communication the resident had sent and the responses provided. The response from the second stage 2 complaint failed to recognise the communication issues and time taken to complete various repairs that have been highlighted in this report.
Without any evidence that shows the landlord’s investigation into this complaint, coupled with the lack of detail within its complaint responses, this amounts to a service failure. This failure left the resident feeling like the landlord did not take the issues seriously and caused him some frustration which can be seen in his replies to the landlord’s complaint responses.
While there was an impact to the resident, this did not affect the overall outcome for him. Even if the landlord would have conducted a full and comprehensive investigation into the matter, there is no guarantee that it would have decided to change the staff member dealing with the issue or uphold the resident’s complaint. In this instance, we do not consider a payment of compensation is necessary to recognise the impact caused. Instead, we will order the landlord to apologise to the resident for this failing.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time said that it would respond at stage 1 and stage 2 of its process within 20 working days.
The landlords first stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses were sent outside of its complaint policy timescale. The stage 1 response was sent after 26 working days, and the stage 2 response was sent after 27 working days. This was unreasonable and caused the resident some inconvenience.
Its second stage 1 response was also sent outside of its complaint timescale. It took 52 working days to provide this response. This was unreasonable and increased the distress and inconvenience felt by the resident.
In addition to the above the landlord also failed to:
1. address all issues the resident raised in its first stage 1 complaint response
2. address the delays in its complaint handling in any of its complaint responses
3. say if the resident’s complaint was upheld or not in its first and second stage 1 complaint responses, and its first stage 2 complaint response
This does not align with the Complaint Handling Code which at the time said a landlord must, in plain language, provide a clear decision on the complaint and address all points raised. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Taking all the circumstances into account there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We consider a payment of £150 to be fair. This acknowledges the detriment to the resident while recognising the impact ended once the complaint process was complete.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. report of a leak from the flat above, and the subsequent report of damp and mould
2. request to repair a trip hazard on a front path
3. request to repair issues with the front fire door after installation
4. request for a copy of an inspection report following an inspection in April 2024
5. associated complaint
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. report of 2 external bricks being left facing the wrong way follow a repair.
2. concerns about the staff member’s conduct
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. request to decorate the property following the flat leak
2. request to make good the garden and install a higher fence
3. request to replace a pane of glass in the patio door

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. write an apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report and provide a copy to us
2. pay compensation totalling £750 and provide evidence it has paid this to us – the compensation is broken down as:
  1. £200 for the impact to the resident relating to the leak and damp and mould complaint
  2. £150 for the impact to the resident after failing to provide an inspection report
  3. £150 for the impact to the resident of the landlord’s complaint handling failures
  4. £100 for the impact to the resident relating to the fire door installation complaint
  5. £100 for the impact to the resident relating to trip hazard complaint
  6. £50 for the impact to the resident relating to the external brickwork complaint
3. contact the resident to ask if he still wants a copy of the inspection report, and if so, provide this to him – and provide a copy of its communication and that it has sent the report to the resident to us
4. contact the resident and arrange a repair for the trip hazard and provide evidence it has arranged the repair to us

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Contacts the resident to see if there are any ongoing issues that the resident has at his property.
2. Conducts an inspection of the resident’s window panes and assess if any further works are required.
3. Conducts a post inspection of the works carried out regarding the resident’s brickwork.