Mid Devon District Council (202402538)

Decision
Case ID	202402538
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Mid Devon District Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	11 May 2026

Background

The resident lives in a block of flats with a communal gate to the rear. On 30 June 2022 the resident reported a blocked rear downpipe and overflowing guttering. The resident complained about delays and incomplete works in November 2022. In March 2023 the resident also complained about the communal gate. The landlord addressed both issues in its final response.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of works to the:
1. Guttering and downpipes.
2. Communal garden gate.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of this complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of works to the guttering and downpipes.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of works to the communal garden gate.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Works to the guttering and downpipes.

Failed appointments and poor communication caused prolonged inconvenience. The remedies offered by the landlord did not fully address the impact on the resident.

Works to the communal garden gate.

Poor communication and a failure to fully assess the gate’s condition at an earlier stage led to delays in addressing its repair.

Complaint handling.

The landlord did not adequately consider the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction before escalating the complaint. Although well intentioned, it also issued a stage 2 review response, which was inconsistent with its policy.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 10 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident total compensation of £350 (inclusive of the £60 already offered), to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused, as follows: £200 for its handling of works to the guttering and downpipes. £100 for its handling of works to the communal gate. £50 for 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 should clearly set out which charges have been waived for works to both the guttering and downpipes and the communal gate, and which charges remain. The landlord must write to the resident about the charges by the due date and provide us with a copy of the letter by the due date.	No later than 10 June 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the guttering and downpipes. The inspection should be carried out by a suitably qualified surveyor who has not had any involvement in previous inspections or works to the guttering and downpipes. The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. 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. The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects the guttering and downpipes for the whole block and produces a written report with photographs about their condition. If any works are identified, the landlord should provide a full scope of works to achieve effective resolution to any issues identified with likely timescales to commence and complete the work. The landlord must provide us with a copy of its findings by the due date.	No later than 08 July 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 November 2022	The resident complained to the landlord. They said: Works to the guttering and downpipes remained outstanding. A contractor had attended on 6 October 2022 rather than 13 October 2022 and had not contacted residents to gain access to the rear. They had not received replies to their emails and had to phone to chase up works.
18 November 2022	The landlord sent its finalised stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint and: Apologised for initial delays in attendance and the unnotified change of date in October, meaning that only the front was cleared due to issues with access. Said a further appointment to clear the guttering was arranged for 11 November 2022, but due to a misunderstanding no other inspection or repair works were raised. Said an appointment had now been made to inspect the guttering on 19 December 2022. Said it had learnt lessons about good record keeping and timely communication.
21 March 2023	The resident raised concerns about the standard of work carried out to the guttering and the communal gate. They: Said debris had been left behind following the last gutter clearance. Queried why the landlord had changed the lock on a gate they reported as rotten. They also cited visible damage, untreated wood and difficulty in opening and closing the gate. They described a previous incident where they were trapped in the garden following a failed handle replacement repair appointment. The landlord treated this as a complaint about the gate.
31 March 2023	The landlord issued a stage 1 response on the communal gate complaint. It did not uphold it, stating: The lock was replaced on 16 March 2023, after staff reported it difficult to use. An inspection on 23 March 2023 found the gate did not need to be painted, but an issue with the gate catching the handle and causing it to break had been identified. A staff member had been asked to check the gate and lock. Their feedback would decide whether further action was needed. There had been no prior reports about the gate’s condition or operation before the resident’s contact.
9 May 2023 to 30 August 2023	The resident continued to report issues with the guttering and downpipes and the gate. On 30 August 2023, the landlord treated this as a complaint escalation.
25 September 2023	The landlord issued a stage 2 response covering the guttering and downpipes and the gate. It said it: Did not agree the gate needed full repainting or lock replacement, but accepted it should be primed and painted where it had been planed. Noted minor rot, but said the gate remained secure and functional and would be replaced when necessary. Upheld the guttering and downpipe complaint, accepting there had been significant miscommunication. Offered £60 in compensation for missed visits and said it would waive guttering charges for the financial year. Said the rear gutters had been cleared and attributed any overflow to periods of exceptionally heavy rain.
24 October 2023	Following clarification from the resident, the landlord issued a stage 2 review response. It said it: Chose to review the complaint, rather than refer the resident to the Ombudsman, to seek earlier resolution. Accepted the gate finish was poor and proposed renewal in the next financial year at no leasehold charge. Noted the resident believed a base blockage was causing gutter and downpipe issues, but said its operatives had run a successful flow test, making a significant blockage unlikely. Said it would review the issue if, during heavy rain, the resident could confirm no water exits the bottom of the downpipe.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 16 April 2024 the resident asked us to investigate their complaint. They said there were ongoing issues with the guttering and downpipes and the gate. They said they were also unhappy with the landlord’s standard of communication.

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 works to the guttering and downpipes.
Finding	Maladministration

The leaseholder handbook confirms the landlord is responsible for the gutters and downpipes to the resident’s block. Its repairs handbook states that urgent repairs will be completed within 7 working days and routine repairs within 35 working days.
On 30 June 2022 the resident queried the standard of previous gutter clearance. They reported a blocked rear downpipe causing overflow from the guttering and a dislodged junction. After chasing up the repair in July 2022, the landlord apologised to the resident for delays. It said works were booked for the end of September 2022. The resident contacted the landlord again on 4 September 2022 and advised the front porch and downpipe were also blocked and overflowing. The landlord confirmed block-wide attendance for 13 October 2022. The landlord did not provide proactive and timely updates to the resident, which resulted in the resident having to chase for information.
A contractor attended at the earlier date of 6 October 2022. They only carried out works to the guttering and downpipes at the front due to reported lack of access to the back. The landlord should have made the resident aware of the earlier appointment. There is no evidence that the contractor took steps to try and gain access to the back, such as making arrangements to have a key or attempting to contact other residents in the block.
A further appointment for gutter clearance was made for 11 November 2022, but due to a misunderstanding, no other inspection or repair works were raised. A follow-up appointment was made for 19 December 2022 and then rescheduled for 19 January 2023 due to emergencies and holidays. The resident was only informed of this after the original appointment date had passed. The landlord again failed to be proactive in its communication.
On 25 February 2023 the resident reported ongoing issues with the guttering and concerns about the standard of work carried out, including debris left behind. A further appointment made for 24 March 2023 was rescheduled 4 times without informing the resident. Given the length of the delay, the landlord should have minimised rescheduling and kept the resident informed about any changes.
The landlord said the guttering and downpipes were fully cleared and cleaned on 30 June 2023. This is 253 working days after the resident reported the issues and significantly outside of the landlord’s published repairs timescales.
The resident continued to report blocked downpipes in August and September 2023. Operatives attended and said no blockages were found, attributing overflow to exceptionally heavy rain. The resident disputed this and believed a blockage remained. The resident later reported that blockages were identified in June 2024 and a bracket to the guttering was fixed, but said the issues were not fully resolved. While it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its operative’s assessments, the ongoing reports indicate it may have been appropriate to seek a further opinion.
The landlord acknowledged there had been miscommunication regarding the gutter clearance. However, it is clear that its communication and record keeping did not improve after its initial reassurances in November 2022. The resident spent a significant amount of time and trouble trying to get the issues resolved. They also expressed concerns that the overflowing guttering was damaging their property and affecting the enjoyment of their home.
The landlord made some attempts to put things right, including offering to waive guttering fees, £60 for missed appointments and guttering renewal. The resident did not accept the compensation offered and the landlord did not replace the guttering, as the bracket was repaired in June 2024. We find that significant delays, failed appointments and poor communication caused prolonged inconvenience. The remedies offered by the landlord were insufficient to address the impact on the resident. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident, as well as the time and trouble taken. This is inclusive of the £60 offered in its stage 2 complaint response.
The resident has advised that the issues still remain unresolved and has provided video footage evidencing a blockage in one of the downpipes. In light of this evidence and the ongoing reports, we have also ordered the landlord to carry out an inspection of the guttering and downpipes.
The landlord committed to waiving charges for downpipe and guttering works in its stage 2 response. The resident told us they are unclear about which charges have been removed and which charges remain. We have therefore ordered the landlord to clearly set out which charges have been waived and which remain applicable for the relevant period.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of works to the communal gate.
Finding	Service failure

On 21 March 2023, the resident raised concerns regarding a replacement lock on the communal gate and the gate’s overall condition. They reported that the gate was difficult to open and close, affecting access, and stated it was rotten, contained holes and had been planed and left unpainted.
Following an inspection on 23 March 2023, the landlord said painting was unnecessary, but noted the door frame was catching and causing the handle to break. It said a further inspection would determine whether additional action was needed. The landlord also stated it had received no prior reports about the gate’s condition. There is no evidence that it provided feedback to the resident after the inspection.
During May 2023 the resident told the landlord that the issues with the gate and gate lock remained unresolved. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s reports until September 2023.
On 25 September 2023 the landlord told the resident it did not find that the lock should be replaced or the gate fully repainted. It said the gate was secure and functional. It later agreed on 24 October 2023 that the gate finish was poor and it should be fully repainted and then renewed in the next financial year. To avoid further delays in its repair, the landlord could have taken more proactive steps to satisfy itself about the gate’s condition at an earlier date.
The landlord confirmed that the gate was primed and painted on 8 November 2023. This was 163 working days after the resident first reported their concerns and a significant delay. The landlord has told us the gate was replaced on 24 June 2025.
The landlord did attempt to put things right. It is positive that it reconsidered its position and offered to replace the gate in the next financial year without charge. However, due to the delays, lack of communication and the landlord’s failure to satisfy itself about the condition of the gate sooner, we have found service failure.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £100 in compensation to reflect the time and trouble taken by the resident to try and resolve the issue.
The landlord committed to waiving charges for the gate in its stage 2 response. The resident told us they are unclear about which charges have been removed and which remain. We have therefore ordered the landlord to clearly set out which charges have been waived and which remain applicable for the relevant period.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy said it would acknowledge complaints and complaint escalations within 3 working days. It aimed to send both stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses within 10 working days. Where a longer investigation was required, this would take a maximum of 12 weeks and the resident would be informed. If the resident remained unhappy following its stage 2 response, it would refer them to the Ombudsman.
Following the stage 1 response regarding the guttering and downpipes, the resident contacted the landlord on 21 March 2023. They raised concerns about the quality of works to the gate and further concerns about works to the guttering and downpipes. The landlord raised a new complaint about the gate, but did not escalate the complaint about the guttering and downpipes. This approach was inconsistent.
In May 2023 the resident continued to express dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of works to the guttering and downpipes and also the gate. As dissatisfaction was expressed, in line with our Code and its own policy, the landlord should have offered the resident the option to escalate matters through its complaints process.
After further clarification from the resident, the landlord issued a stage 2 review response. Although it had good intentions, it did not follow its policy here. The landlord could have sought clarification before issuing its stage 2 response. This may have prevented further delays and reduced the risk of confusion about the landlord’s final decision.
Due to its failure to consider the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction and its decision to issue a stage 2 response without full clarification, we have made a finding of service failure.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £50 in compensation for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.

Learning

The landlord should have taken a more proactive approach in monitoring repair works. Where a resident reports persistent repair issues, the landlord should consider whether a second opinion or alternative contractor input is needed.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should have taken a more consistent approach in how it recorded and escalated the resident’s complaints.

Communication

The landlord’s communication could be improved. In this case the landlord should have provided timely updates about repairs.