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.

Medway Council (202313199)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313199

Medway Council

22 April 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 flooring repairs.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant at the property since 12 October 2009. The property is a 2-bedroom second floor flat. The landlord told us that it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded on its housing management system for the resident. However, it is aware that he receives person independence payments and has mobility issues.
  2. There is evidence that the landlord historically raised jobs to renew flooring in the lounge, hallway and bedroom in July and September 2013. It completed work to the small bedroom floor in December 2013.
  3. The resident complained on 14 July 2023. He said that:
    1. All warrants issued by the housing team were forgeries.
    2. He would like a home visit because he had outstanding repairs.
    3. He had medical issues and the stress of his housing problems was making things worse.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 26 July 2023. It said that it had tried to contact the resident on 20 and 24 July 2023 but had been unable to because the number on its records was unobtainable. It said that its contractor had tried to carry out outstanding repairs but the resident had said he was unwell and would reschedule the appointment. It said that it could visit the property on 27 July 2023 at 2pm with a supervisor from the contractor. It asked him to confirm if this was convenient and to let it know his new phone number.
  5. The resident contacted this Service for help. He told us that he had asked the landlord to escalate his complaint but could not provide any evidence of his request. On 9 January 2024 we wrote to the landlord and told it that the resident had outstanding issues with his flooring. He wanted the landlord to replace the flooring with a vinyl covering and arrange a managed move to a suitable property. We asked the landlord to provide a response by 7 February 2024.
  6. The landlord raised a repairs job on the same day to discuss the flooring issues with the resident. It telephoned him on 25 January 2024 and wrote him to the next day. It said that it was holding a 1-bedroom bungalow for him to move into while it carried out work to his property and that this could possibly become a permanent move if the property was suitable for his needs. Once it had visited the property with the contractor it could discuss the move.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 30 January 2024. It said that:
    1. It had scheduled an appointment to inspect the flooring on 11 January 2024 but the resident had cancelled it because he was unwell.
    2. It had arranged another appointment for its head of tenant services and a contractor supervisor to attend on Tuesday 20 February 2024.
    3. An electrical contractor would attend the same day to complete an electrical check.
    4. Historically it had encountered difficulties accessing the property and this had led to it obtaining warrants to access the property for gas safety checks.
    5. It had previously offered a decant which the resident had refused. However, it was now making another offer and had enclosed a formal offer with the complaint response.
    6. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. However, it wished to resolve all outstanding repairs and therefore had offered the alternative property for him to move into while these were carried out.
  8. The landlord and a contractor supervisor visited the property on 20 February 2024. They noted that the resident refused flooring works and the offer of the decant into a bungalow.
  9. The landlord visited again on 1 March 2024 but noted that the resident refused to have any work done to the flooring. On 16 April 2024 it noted that the resident refused to allow it access to the property until this Service had completed our investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot establish liability or award damages. As a result, we cannot determine whether the landlord’s actions impacted the resident’s health. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health is more appropriate for the courts and he may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.

Flooring repairs

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs in accordance with section 11 of the landlord and tenant act 1985. This places an obligation on it to keep in good repair and working order the structure of the property and installations for water and space heating.
  2. The tenancy agreement also states that the resident must allow employees of the landlord or people authorised by it into the property to inspect and carry out repairs and improvements and to undertake gas servicing.
  3. We have seen no evidence that the resident reported issues with the flooring in the year before the complaint. Following the stage 1 complaint the landlord offered the resident an appointment to inspect any outstanding repairs. We have seen no evidence that the resident told the landlord that he would accept the appointment. It would have been good practice for the landlord to contact the resident again but it was not obliged to do so. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably in the action it took.
  4. There is evidence that the landlord has tried to complete gas safety inspections and remedial work following an electrical inspection at the property. It is obliged to keep the property safe but if a resident does not allow access this compromises its ability to adhere to its obligations. There is evidence that the resident has not always allowed contractors to enter the property. Therefore, the landlord has applied to the courts for a warrant to carry out gas inspections. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that he must allow access. Therefore, the landlord has acted reasonably in this regard.
  5. We have seen no evidence that the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. The landlord escalated the complaint after we contacted it. It acted in a timely manner and inspected the property. It offered the resident a decant to a bungalow on a temporary basis that might become permanent if the property suited his needs. This was so that it could carry out any outstanding repairs to his current property. However, the resident refused this offer and gave no reasons why the alternative property would not be suitable for his needs. The landlord also offered to complete flooring repairs while he remained in the property, but according to its notes, the resident refused.
  6. We have seen no evidence that the landlord acted unreasonably or not in line with its policies in this case. It offered to resolve the resident’s complaint by decanting him to another property so that it could complete outstanding repairs. It also offered to complete them while he remained in the property. Therefore, there has been no maladministration in its handling of flooring repairs.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of flooring repairs.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider offering to undergo mediation with the resident to try to restore the landlord and tenant relationship and achieve a mutually agreeable solution to any outstanding repairs.
  2. The landlord should ensure that it updates its housing management system with all the resident’s vulnerabilities to ensure that it considers any reasonable adjustments necessary.
  3. If agreeable to the resident the landlord should refer the resident to any agencies in the area that provide appropriate advocacy or support.