From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Kingston upon Hull City Council (202417270)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417270

Kingston upon Hull City Council

26 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 we have carefully this. 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:
    1. Handling of repairs throughout the resident’s property.
    2. Response to the resident’s reports about his mental health.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom property, owned by the landlord. He lives with his adult son. The resident is registered blind, and he experiences mental health issues. The landlord is aware of his vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident reported a suspected leak to the landlord in December 2022, and he complained about its handling of repairs in July 2023. We investigated that complaint under reference 202314548. The resident complained to the landlord again on 27 June 2024 as he said it was holding up further related repairs to internal fixtures and plasterwork.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 July 2024. The landlord said it had made every reasonable effort to complete the works, but the resident had not agreed to the contractor’s terms regarding access.
  4. In the meantime, the resident had made multiple comments to the landlord about his mental health. The landlord called him on 29 July 2024 to offer a joint home visit with a mental health social worker. The resident declined the landlord’s offer, and he made a separate complaint on 29 July 2024 to say it had interfered with his private life.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint regarding the landlord’s intrusion into his private life on 9 August 2024. The landlord said it had acted out of concern for the resident’s wellbeing and did not mean to upset him.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to escalate both his complaints on 12 August 2024. The landlord issued separate stage 2 responses on 16 August 2024. It repeated its position at stage 1 on both cases. We understand the landlord completed the repairs in November 2024.
  7. The resident referred his complaints to us in March 2025 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s final responses. He said it had treated him unfairly and caused unnecessary delays.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Our previous determination under reference 202314548 looked at matters up until 22 January 2024. As we have already decided upon these matters, this investigation will therefore consider events between 22 January 2024 to 20 November 2024 when the landlord completed the repairs. Any reference to events outside these timescales is for context only.
  2. The resident said the landlord’s handling of the repairs and the way it treated him had significantly impacted his mental health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights into the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court.

The landlord’s handling of repairs throughout the resident’s property

  1. The landlord identified various repair needs and snagging issues in July 2023. These included the internal plasterwork, and external brickwork. Our earlier investigation found various repairs had remained outstanding as the landlord had not been able to access the property.
  2. The landlord conducted a new survey on 7 March 2024 which recommended extensive works throughout the property, which mostly related to plasterwork and stain-blocking. According to the landlord’s records, it agreed with the resident it would start the recommended repairs on 8 April 2024. The records also show the landlord offered to provide temporary accommodation for the duration of the works, although the resident opted to stay with a friend.
  3. However, there is evidence to show the resident emailed the landlord on 22 and 26 March 2024 to raise concerns about the plans. He said the landlord intended to install an extractor fan in the bathroom which he did not agree to, and there was “no point letting [the contractors] in” until it had resolved this dispute. The resident also said the landlord had taken no steps to safeguard him, and he stated he would not engage with the process any further until it had put measures in place to ensure his safety.
  4. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 April 2024 to explain it had cancelled the works while it responded to his concerns. The landlord stated it would support him as best it could to agree arrangements for the works. The landlord said it would still arrange temporary accommodation once it had rescheduled the works.
  5. The landlord’s repairs policy states it may not be possible for vulnerable residents to remain in a property during repair works if this would be detrimental to their wellbeing.
  6. The evidence shows the landlord offered temporary accommodation as it was aware the resident’s sight loss may have put him at risk. It therefore took reasonable steps to protect his safety and welfare which were in line with its policy. It was reasonable for the landlord to postpone the works, as it was aware the resident was likely to refuse access until it had addressed his concerns.
  7. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 19 April 2024. It said it would do all it could to minimise disruption, but it needed to meet its repair obligations. The landlord offered a final opportunity to meet with the resident to agree the best approach for the repairs. The landlord said it may need to seek a court order to gain access to the property if it could not reach an agreement. In its letter, the landlord acknowledged the resident had found the process difficult. However, it asked him to be constructive and reasonable when discussing the repairs.
  8. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on landlords to conduct essential repairs to the structure of the building, as was the case with the work needed to the resident’s property. Section 21 of the resident’s tenancy agreement states a tenant must allow reasonable access for inspections and repairs when required.
  9. The evidence shows it was reasonable for the landlord to explain if the parties could not agree how the repairs would take place, it may have to resort to the option for it to apply for a court order to gain access to the property and facilitate the repairs.
  10. The landlord’s records state it called and wrote to the resident on 16 May 2024 to agree it would start the works on 15 July 2024. At this point, the resident said he would stay with a friend during the repairs however he wanted his pet cat to remain in the property.
  11. The landlord’s records show it discussed the issue about the resident’s cat internally. It concluded it was not reasonable to expect the contractors to work around his cat. The landlord called the resident on 21 June 2024 to say the resident’s cat was his responsibility and he should make other arrangements, although it offered to pay for a cattery. The resident declined this as he said his cat would not cope in another environment.
  12. The resident complained to the landlord on 27 June 2024, via his son. He said the landlord’s stance over his cat was “pathetic” and it was holding up the works. The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 July 2024 to say it had cancelled the works again as it had not been able to reach an agreement. In its letter, the landlord said it had referred the matter to its legal team.
  13. The landlord then issued its stage 1 response on 11 July 2024. The landlord gave a timeline of events up to that point. It said its contractors had said his cat could not stay at the property in the resident’s absence whilst the works were underway. The landlord stated the presence of the cat could cause a trip hazard. The landlord also said it could not guarantee his cat’s safety and wellbeing, and leaving the window open for her as the resident had requested could be a security risk.
  14. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 12 August 2024. He said the repairs had been outstanding for too long, and he felt the landlord’s stance regarding his cat was unreasonable. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 16 August 2024, it detailed its position had not changed following review of its stage1 response.
  15. The landlord’s repairs policy states it expects tenants to ensure they keep pets out of the working area during repairs. The evidence shows the landlord was aware how important the resident’s cat was to him, and it took a pragmatic approach by offering to pay for boarding at a cattery. In accordance with its policy, it was reasonable for the landlord to expect the cat was not present and left unsupervised while contractors conducted works at the property.
  16.  The evidence shows the landlord was aware how important the resident’s cat was to him, and it took a pragmatic approach by offering to pay for boarding at a cattery. In accordance with its policy, it was reasonable for the landlord to expect his cat was not present and left unsupervised while contractors conducted works at the property.
  17. The landlord’s legal team wrote to the resident on 21 August 2024 to explain it would take enforcement action through the courts unless it could agree access arrangements within 14 days. We understand the landlord then reached an agreement with the resident, and it completed the repairs on 20 November 2024.
  18. In summary, landlords must conduct essential repairs within a reasonable period of time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances of each case. In this instance it took at least 16 months for the landlord to complete the repairs. However, the evidence shows it made frequent and reasonable attempts to conduct the works. The landlord took additional steps to try to move the situation forward, such as making an offer to pay for a cattery despite there being no obligation for it to do so. It clearly set out if that, if its attempts to mutually agree how to conduct the repairs were unsuccessful, it may use enforcement options to gain access to conduct the works which the law required.
  19. The evidence shows the landlord acted reasonably in its attempts to facilitate access to the property and in accordance with its policies throughout. This leads us to a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about his mental health

  1. While the resident was communicating with the landlord about the repairs, the evidence also shows he contacted it at least 9 times between May and July 2024 to say the situation had caused him to feel suicidal. There is also historical evidence that he had made similar comments in the past.
  2. The landlord’s records show it tried to discuss this with the resident directly, at least twice during this period. The records show the resident became frustrated and ended the calls. Email evidence also shows the landlord contacted the local authority’s mental health crisis team, however the team said they could not accept a referral without the resident’s consent.
  3. According to the landlord’s internal records and emails, it called the resident on 29 July 2024 to offer a home visit with a mental health social worker. The landlord explained this was to check the resident’s wellbeing with a suitably qualified person and ascertain any support needs.
  4. The landlord’s records state the resident declined the offer and ended the call. He then sent a series of texts to the landlord the same day, to say his mental health was not the landlord’s concern, asked it to “leave [him] alone”, and said he wanted to raise a complaint.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 August 2024. It said it was applying its safeguarding responsibilities, due to the resident’s repeated comments that he had considered taking his own life. The landlord said it had a duty of care to report such incidents and respond as best it could, and it did not intend to cause any distress or interfere with the resident’s private life.
  6. As a public authority and a social housing provider, the landlord has obligations to safeguard its residents where there may be risks to health, safety, life, or wellbeing. As such, the landlord’s actions were well intentioned, appropriate, and reasonable in the circumstances.
  7. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 12 August 2024 as he was not satisfied with its response. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 August 2024 in which it repeated its position, and it said it had acted in good faith.
  8. The evidence shows the landlord responded appropriately to its concerns over the resident’s mental health and wellbeing, and its offer of further help was proportionate considering the nature of the information disclosed by the resident. We therefore find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about his mental health.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of repairs throughout the resident’s property.
    2. Response to the resident’s reports about his mental health.