Bristol City Council (202441157)

Decision
Case ID	202441157
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Bristol City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

1. The resident lives with her child in a house. The property has side access open to the street. Both the resident and her child live with mental health vulnerabilities. The resident also lives with a mobility impairment. Work undertaken by a previous resident had created issues with her patio door, which would not fully close or lock. She first reported this to the landlord in 2022.The landlord resolved the issue in April 2025. However, the resident told us that she is not satisfied with the repair.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a defective patio door.
3. We have also looked at the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a defective patio door.
   2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a defective patio door

5. The landlord delayed significantly in fixing the resident’s door which was a failure to comply with the timescales outlined in its repairs policy. It has also not shown that it considered the household’s vulnerabilities throughout the process.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord did not respond to all complaint points at stage 1 of its complaints process. Further, it did not escalate the resident’s complaint when first requested and failed to conduct a thorough investigation at stage 2.

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 provided by a senior manager 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 27 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,050 made up as follows: £900 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its handling of the defective door £150 for the distress inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its complaint handling This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 27 February 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should inspect the rear door and undertake the necessary work to ensure the door closes without a gap being left.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 March 2023 – 26 July 2024	The resident raised ongoing issues with the patio door 5 times between these dates. She told the landlord that she could not lock the door, which left the property unsecure. She asked it to visit and repair the door.
5 September 2024	The landlord raised an order to replace the lintels and patio doors. It gave a target completion date of 26 September 2024.
15 November 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She advised that the patio door had been broken for over 1 year, which created a safety issue for her and her family. She said: her child could leave the property during the night without her being aware the landlord had started work on the door and then it had stopped without explanation the contractors had not turned up to appointments she wanted the landlord to fix the door and provide compensation for the loss of heat as well as the stress she had experienced
19 November 2024	The landlord provided its complaint response. It acknowledged that it had missed 2 appointments to visit and assess the repair. It confirmed that a surveyor and contractor had visited on 19 November 2024 to review and plan the work. It advised that it had asked to be kept updated on the progress of the work and apologised that it had not completed the repair in a timely manner.
19 November 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord had not dealt with her request to be compensated for the loss of heat as well as the delay and distress caused by its failure to repair the door. She confirmed that the landlord had apologised but that this was not sufficient to resolve her complaint.
27 November 2024	The resident sent a further escalation email. She said despite making a complaint the landlord had still not repaired the door. She advised she was disabled and that her child lived with Autism and that both were being put at risk due to the inability to lock the door. She confirmed that the landlord had failed to turn up to appointments and had not installed the temporary security latch. She stated that the landlord’s failure to provide her with a secure home was a breach of her tenancy agreement.
30 December 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: the resident had initially reported the faulty door in August 2022. It had visited between August and September 2022 to repair the door and believed it had successfully done so it had received no further contact from the resident until 24 August 2024 it conducted temporary repairs on 3 December 2024 and had since instructed its contractors to attend and replace the door in the New Year it recognised that it should have taken swift action to secure the door when the resident had made it aware of the issue on 24 August 2024 it apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and offered £150 compensation
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us she wanted us to investigate her complaint. She said she wanted the landlord to repair the door and compensate her for the distress and inconvenience she had experienced.
January 2026	The resident informed us that the landlord came to repair the door in April 2025. She advised that the repairs went on for longer than expected and that the contractors had “left a mess”, which she raised as a separate complaint with the landlord. In addition, she said that there was still a gap in the door that the contractor was to come back and fix but had not.

 

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 the defective door.
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not look at

7. The resident told us this situation had a detrimental impact on her 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 any further under any of the complaint grounds. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. We have not considered any events after the landlord’s stage 2 response. However, we are aware the resident has made a separate complaint related to the timescales to conduct the repair and the condition the contractors left her property in. As such, we have recommended the landlord inspects the door and carries out any necessary repairs. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response she may refer her complaint to us for a separate investigation.

What we did look at

9. The resident first reported issues with the door in August 2022, the landlord attended in September 2022 and conducted a repair. She reported further problems with the door in March 2023. There was then a gap in reporting between May 2023 and July 2024. In the interests of fairness, and considering the availability of evidence, our investigation is focused on events from March 2023. This is in line with the landlord’s complaints policy for instances where issues are continuing, which it has not resolved.
10. When conducting work to the resident’s kitchen on 22 March 2023, the landlord noted that the patio door would need to be “renewed or fixed”. It contacted her on 2 May 2023 to arrange an appointment. The notes indicate the resident hung up without the landlord being able to arrange the visit. It spoke to her again on 9 May 2023. In that call the resident told the landlord that the rear door was not secure. It raised a surveyors inspection for 19 May 2023. However, there is no evidence that the inspection went ahead. This indicates poor record keeping, it would have been appropriate to record whether the inspection did or did not happen.
11. The resident’s tenancy agreement outlines the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the interior and exterior structure of the property as well as the external doors. This responsibility is reiterated in its repairs policy, which also outlines the repair timescales. These are 24 hours for emergency repairs and 21 calendar days for routine repairs.
12. It is evident that the landlord did not repair the door in May 2023. This was a failure to comply with its repairs policy and its repairing obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Further, not conducting the work likely left the resident feeling her repair was not a priority for the landlord.
13. On 5 and 26 July 2024, the resident responded to emails from the landlord in relation to rent arrears. In both emails she said that despite reporting the broken door multiple times it had not been fixed, which created a security risk. She also told the landlord that she was severely disabled. It then raised an order to inspect the door on 13 August 2024 and booked a surveyor inspection for 29 August 2024. Given the resident reported the door issue on 5 July 2024, not conducting the inspection until 29 August 2024 was a period of 56 calendar days. This demonstrates the landlord’s ongoing failure to comply with its repairs policy.
14. There is no record of the inspection on 29 August 2024, however it raised an order on 5 September 2024 to replace the lintels above the patio doors and the doors themselves. It marked this order as a routine repair with a scheduled completion date for 26 September 2024. Unreasonably the landlord failed to meet this date and did not attend 2 further appointments, causing the resident ongoing frustration, time and trouble.
15. The resident continued to raise her security concerns with the broken door in her stage 1 complaint on 15 November 2024 and her complaint escalation emails on 19 and 27 November 2024. In the emails she again told the landlord that she was disabled and that her child was vulnerable and could leave the property in the middle of the night without her knowing. In addition, she said the property was vulnerable to intruders and that the landlord had not installed the temporary security latch it said it would.
16. On 2 December 2024, the landlord requested a visit to secure the property “as soon as possible”. A contractor attended the next day and conducted a temporary fix allowing the door to be locked. The speed with which this happened indicates the significant missed opportunity to provide the temporary fix when the landlord was first made aware of the issue.
17. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. A property that is not secure can result in the presence of a category 1 or 2 hazard. The HHSRS goes on to state that the risk of entry by intruders increases with reduced levels of security.
18. The side access to the resident’s property is open to the street, which could allow access to the rear of the property and the unsecured door.
19. The landlord’s continuing failure to secure the property was unreasonable and allowed an unnecessary and avoidable hazard to persist over a prolonged period. Despite knowing of the resident’s and her child’s vulnerabilities, the excessive timeframes indicate that these did not factor in the landlord’s decision making. This was an additional failure to comply with its repairs policy which requires it to consider vulnerabilities.
20. The landlord acknowledged its failure to repair the door in its stage 1 response but did not offer any compensation. The resident raised this in her escalation request. In response it said it would work out compensation when it completed the repair. This was unreasonable and not in line with its compensation policy. The policy states that it can pay compensation for: delays in service, failure to meet response times and where it has taken an unreasonable time to resolve matters. All 3 applied to the resident’s situation. Not providing compensation at stage 1 was not in line with its policy and a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident.
21. At stage 2 the landlord offered £150 compensation for not providing a secure door between 24 August 2024 and 3 December 2024. Given the timescales highlighted above, which exceed those referred to by the landlord, we do not feel the award was appropriate. We have increased the compensation to £900. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for instances where there has been a serious failure by the landlord, which had a significant impact on the resident.
22. As part of the resident’s complaint, she asked it to compensate her for increased energy costs due to the loss of heat caused by the door not fully closing. The landlord pointed her towards a compensation form on its website where she could upload her energy bills. The resident did not want to provide bills. She said the fact the door did not close should be evidence enough.
23. The landlord’s compensation policy states that loss payments such as heating “must be evidenced”. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident for copies of her energy bills so it could calculate the appropriate level of compensation for the additional energy costs she had incurred. If the resident provides the landlord with copies of her bills now, it should consider this and tell her if it will pay towards her energy costs.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

24. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgment.
25. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint within the required timescales. However, it did not fully assess the time period involved with the repair. It also did not respond in full to her request for compensation or refunded energy costs. This was unreasonable and caused the resident further time and trouble pursuing the matter.
26. The same day the resident received the landlord’s stage 1 response she told it that she was not happy with the response and listed the reasons why. The landlord responded advising she had every right to escalate her complaint but asked that she allow it time to work with her to agree a resolution. We feel that the resident’s email was a clear request to escalate her complaint and it should have accepted it as such. The landlord had the opportunity to provide a resolution at stage 1. Its request for a further opportunity before the resident escalated her complaint was unreasonable and not in line with the Code.
27. The resident made a further request to escalate her complaint on 27 November 2024. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the escalation request and provided its response in line with its published timescales.
28. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that the resident had not contacted it about the door after it had conducted the repair in September 2022, until August 2024. This was not reflected in the evidence. As shown in the landlord’s records the resident reported the door and her security concerns several times in March and May 2023, as well as July 2024. The landlord’s failure to recognise these contacts indicates that it did not conduct a thorough investigation, which was inappropriate and an additional failure to comply with the code.
29. Due to the issues highlighted in the landlord’s complaint handling we have made an award of £150 compensation, which is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

30. The records show that a surveyor recommended that the door was repaired or changed in March 2023. It would be helpful for the landlord to explore and understand why this repair was not taken forward at that time so that it can prevent such a recurrence in the future.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord’s record keeping was poor in this case. It was unclear why repairs did not go ahead as planned and there was a general absence of inspection records and notes regarding cancelled inspections. This highlights the need for improved record keeping between the landlord and its contractors.

Communication

32. In her conversation with the rent team in May 2024, the resident raised the issues regarding the door. While the rent team did notify the repairs team, the communication was slow and led to delays. Timely communication is essential to a functioning repairs service. It would be appropriate for the landlord to consider how it can improve communication between departments.