Gateway Housing Association Limited (202400771)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400771

Gateway Housing Association Limited

15 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s request for a meeting to discuss cyclical works.
    2. Issuing service charge statements for years ending December 2021 and December 2022.
    3. The defects list for 2022 cyclical works supplied by the resident.
    4. The resident’s concerns about the replacement of the building’s windows.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder who sublets his property. The landlord is the freeholder. The property is a 2-bedroom first-floor flat in a block.
  2. On 21 July 2022, the Service issued our report for a complaint brought by the resident about the landlord’s administration of service charges and whether an audit was required. We decided the complaint was outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and advised the resident to approach the Financial Reporting Council, the First Tier Tribunal (property chamber) or the court.
  3. In 2022, the landlord replaced the windows in the building. On 28 October 2023, the resident requested a meeting with the landlord. Relevant points he wanted to discuss included charges for previously completed cyclical works, service charge accounts and the defects list for the building. The landlord said it would arrange a meeting after it had worked through the points raised.
  4. The resident complained on 13 January 2024 that the meeting had not gone ahead. He also said the landlord had breached the lease by not issuing the December 2021 and December 2022 service charge statements. On 15 January, he complained about unresolved building defects. He raised a further complaint on 24 January regarding service charge demands sent by the landlord.
  5. The landlord responded to the complaints on 26 January. To support arranging a meeting it asked the resident for any questions he wanted to discuss and his availability. It said it was delayed sending the service charge statements due to the resident’s enquiry about auditing, and the need for legal advice. It apologised and said it would offer all leaseholders £100 for the delay. It said it had answered all issues regarding the defects list and considered the matter closed.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 30 and 31 January 2024, stating he had not had a full answer regarding outstanding defects. He said the landlord was blaming him for the delay in sending the service charge statements. He also asked for an analysis of costs for previously completed cyclical works before he met with the landlord.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint responses on 21 and 27 February 2024. It said the only outstanding defect was a lock for the building’s tank room, which it would fit by the end of that week. It said its legal advice was that the service charge accounts required a certificate of review by an auditor. It said it would provide the statements once this was done and would include the cost of the cyclical works in this review.
  8. The resident raised a complaint about the windows on 16 March 2024, stating the landlord was refusing to respond to his concerns. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 March. It said it had received legal advice about its responsibility for maintaining the windows but was now seeking further advice.
  9. The resident escalated his complaint on 31 March 2024. He said the landlord was passing on the cost of replacing the windows to residents. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 25 April. It provided a cost analysis of the maintenance of the previous windows. It said the previous windows were 30 years old, and the new windows should improve efficiency. It shared an independent surveyor’s assessment of the issue.
  10. On 7 August 2024, a solicitor wrote on behalf of the landlord in response to contact from the resident’s solicitor on 5 July. It said it would provide the service charge statements by 16 August. It provided details of the costs of the cyclical works. It stated professional advice confirmed it had replaced the windows appropriately. It offered to meet the resident in person or remotely. It also offered £1000 compensation for his time and trouble, particularly regarding the service charge delays. The landlord sent the service charge statements for December 2021 and 2022 on 2 September 2024.
  11. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decisions and responses, especially regarding the windows, and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He wanted the landlord to pay for some or all of the cost of replacing the windows.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. On 2 August 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman about new issues with the landlord. This included problems with the roof and parapet wall, annual service charge statements for 2023 and 2024, the landlord’s policy concerning stock condition surveys, and the landlord’s allegations that he was harassing it and advocating for other residents.
  2. The resident has confirmed he has raised these issues with the landlord, but there is no evidence it has provided a final complaint response to them. Once he has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process the resident can raise the issues with the Ombudsman. These points will not be assessed in this report.

The resident’s request for a meeting to discuss cyclical works

  1. The resident initially complained on 13 January 2024 that an agreed meeting on the expenditure of cyclical works had not gone ahead.
  2. Evidence shows the landlord and resident were attempting to arrange a meeting between September 2023 and October 2023. The landlord apologised in November 2023 for not progressing this and confirmed it would arrange a meeting as soon as possible.
  3. No meeting took place following this as the staff member responsible left the landlord’s employment. The resident raised this in his 13 January 2024 complaint. The landlord appropriately responded to the details of the staff member leaving. However, it failed to acknowledge the delay this caused, and it had not passed this responsibility onto another staff member between November 2023 and January 2024.
  4. However, the landlord made attempts to rectify this in its reply of 26 January 2024. It appropriately offered to meet with the resident and asked him for any questions he may have and his availability.
  5.  In his escalation requests of 31 January and 4 February, the resident asked for additional information about the windows and a cost analysis of the cyclical works before arranging a meeting. In its stage 2 reply, the landlord managed the resident’s expectations by stating that the cost of the cyclical work would be reviewed by its accountant and it would provide this when it provided the service charge statements to the resident.
  6. On 29 April 2024, the landlord stated its complaint process was exhausted, but it was happy to meet with him to discuss all issues. The resident agreed to this the following day but said it would be “helpful” to resolve the issues first. The landlord reiterated on 7 May that it was happy to meet the resident to discuss his points of complaint. There is no evidence of the resident directly replying to this.
  7. The landlord repeated its offer to meet with the resident in the letter from its solicitor on 7 August 2024. In this letter it provided the cyclical works costs the resident requested ahead of any meeting. It offered to complete a meeting remotely, taking into consideration that the resident lived abroad. There is no evidence of the resident responding directly to this.
  8. In summary, there was an initial delay in arranging a meeting with the resident due to a staff member leaving the landlord’s employment. Following this, the landlord made reasonable efforts to arrange meetings and provided the information the resident required.

Issuing service charge statements for years ending December 2021 and December 2022.

  1. In his initial complaint of 13 January 2024, the resident said the landlord was in breach of the lease for not issuing service charge statements for December 2021 and December 2022.
  2. The landlord’s initial response of 26 January 2024 on the matter was appropriate. It explained it had recently obtained legal advice and confirmed it needed to complete a certificate of review, which it was arranging to complete with an external accountant.
  3. The landlord offered to share the legal advice it received to satisfy the resident that it had not breached the lease. It also offered compensation of £100 in accordance with its compensation policy for the delay and the inconvenience caused.
  4. In his escalation of 31 January 2024, the resident said he believed the landlord was blaming him for the delay in issuing the service charge statements due to his concerns about an audit. He said the December 2021 statement was 18 months late and the December 2022 statement was 7 months late. He said it could not blame the delay on seeking legal advice.
  5. In its response of 27 February 2024, the landlord said it noted the resident’s comments but was following the Ombudsman determination of the resident’s complaint (202114470) in July 2022. It reiterated its apology and compensation offer from its 26 January response. It managed his expectations by confirming it would issue the statements once its accountants had completed their review.
  6. On 7 August 2024, the landlord’s solicitor letter confirmed the landlord posted the December 2021 and 2022 service charge certificates on 16 August 2024. This was following completion of the accountant’s review. This was in line with the landlord’s explanation in its complaint response.
  7. The landlord offered further compensation of £1000 for the time and trouble caused by the delay. This was in accordance with its compensation policy for the overall delay in providing a service.
  8. The landlord subsequently discovered it had sent the papers to the property address rather than the resident’s. It re-sent the certificates to the resident on 2 September 2024. There is no evidence that this slight delay adversely impacted the resident.  It recognised an error with its process as a result and ensured it would send copies digitally for any resident living abroad.
  9. In summary, the landlord’s explanation that it sought legal advice was valid and based on the Ombudsman’s determination in July 2022. It acted accordingly once it received the advice. It arranged for an accountant to review the service charges and managed the resident’s expectations on when it would provide them. It offered proportionate compensation for the overall delay and the inconvenience caused to the resident.

The defects list for 2022 cyclical works supplied by the resident.

  1. In his initial complaint of 15 January 2024, the resident said that there were several outstanding defects in the building. It is not clear from the evidence which specific defects the resident was referring to.
  2. The landlord’s final reply, on 21 Feb 2024, stated that the only outstanding works from the defects list was a lock for the tank room. It managed the resident’s expectations, confirming it would complete this the same week. There is no evidence to suggest the resident disputed this or to further state that any outstanding work was incomplete. Accordingly, the landlord’s response was reasonable.

The resident’s concerns about the replacement of the building’s windows.

  1. On 23 January 2024, the resident said the landlord had not appropriately maintained the wooden windows in the building. He said it prematurely replaced the windows, believing they should have lasted between 30 and 60 years. He asked for his concerns to be treated informally, but on 4 February included them in his complaint escalation.
  2. The landlord replied on 21 February 2024, stating its position on the windows remained unchanged. This was that it replaced the windows as they were 32 years old and had reached the end of their life cycle. It clarified this further in its stage 1 response on 28 March. Nonetheless, it also said it was seeking legal advice about them.
  3. The landlord provided further clarification in its next reply on 25 April 2024. It confirmed an independent surveyor had inspected its approach to the windows. This was appropriate to offer an impartial assessment of its approach. The surveyor confirmed the replacements were appropriate. This was also in accordance with the Decent Homes Standard, which suggests a lifespan of 30 years for windows in 6-storey (or less) building.
  4. The landlord gave the resident the surveyor’s findings, provided a cost comparison for maintaining the windows (which it assured him he would not be charged for), and explained the new windows would improve “efficiency.”
  5. The resident was concerned that the landlord did not tell the surveyor the windows’ maintenance history. The landlord responded to this in the 2 August reply, confirming it provided all relevant information, including the cyclical maintenance history to the independent surveyor before the outcome.
  6. In summary, the landlord had previously confirmed its position on the replacement of the windows. To provide reassurance, it appropriately arranged for an independent assessment of its actions, which found it acted appropriately. It provided further reassurance to the resident on the cost implications and efficiency of the windows. The landlord’s actions were appropriate to the situation and its explanations supported by the evidence.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s request for a meeting to discuss cyclical works.
    2. The defects list for 2022 cyclical works supplied by the resident.
    3. The resident’s concerns about the replacement of the building’s windows.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of issuing service charge statements for years ending December 2021 and December 2022.