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.

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (202328136)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328136

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough 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 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 the resident’s reports of defects to the property.
  2. We have also looked at the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority. The property is a new build bungalow.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 28 June 2023. She said:
    1. There had been no follow up from the landlord or the developer in regard to the installation of a cupboard light and the repositioning of the bathroom shower switch.
    2. The landlord had not responded to her request to know who was responsible for the fencing around the property or for the instruction booklets on how to use the thermostat and outside lights.
    3. The landlord had not carried out a 6-week housing check despite knowing she was unhappy with several issues with the property.
    4. There had been no action by the developer in regard to connectivity issues with the internet and the TV aerial of the property.
    5. There were still no dates as to when the developer would take action over the width of the passageway to the rear of the property.
  3. The landlord issued the resident with its stage 1 response to the complaint on 11 July 2023. It said the developer was responsible for resolving any defects that arose in the first 12 months of the resident moving into the property and its role was to liaise with the developer to ensure issues were resolved in a timely manner. It said:
    1. The developer had said the internet issues were not its responsibility as the cable was installed by a third-party provider.
    2. The developer could not rectify the issue with the TV connection plate as it had been worked on by a third-party.
    3. It would discuss the issue of the shower isolation switch being inaccessible with the developer to put it right.
    4. It said the passageway served its purpose and there were no building regulations relating to its width and therefore it was not obliged to widen it. It said the developer could move the fence panels to the other side of the fence posts to create more space in the passage. The landlord also said it could move the electronic vehicle charging point to the front of the house.
    5. It upheld the resident’s complaint in regard to performing a 6-week check but said that it did not usually do these for existing residents transferring to a new property.
    6. The resident should have been provided with information relating to the thermostat, outside light and responsibility of the fencing around the property promptly but had not been. It upheld this part of the resident’s complaint.
  4. The resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process on 23 July 2023.
  5. On 26 July 2023, the landlord told the resident it would send her concerns to the relevant internal department to respond to rather than escalating it to stage 2 of its process.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint again on 8 September and 13 September 2023.
  7. The landlord contacted the developer on 9 September 2023 to tell it the resident was continuing to experience issues with her internet and passed on the details of the resident’s own internet supplier’s visit and their findings.
  8. On 10 November 2023, the landlord told the resident it would not escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process because:
    1. It was not responsible for her broadband connection, and this issue could not be resolved via its complaints procedure.
    2. It believed it had already sent her the instruction booklet for the thermostat but if it had not, a named member of staff could provide it to her. It said it was a straightforward issue and escalating the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process would only achieve the same outcome.
    3. The same member of staff who could provide the thermostat booklet could also deal with the issue of the cupboard light.
  9. The landlord sent the resident the instruction booklet for the thermostat on 22 November 2023. It also said that although it was not responsible for the resident’s broadband connection, the resident could request a fault diagnosis from her internet supplier to assist it in determining the underlying problem. It also said it was not obliged to install a light in the cupboard, and she could employ her own electrician to do so if she wished.
  10. The resident has since told us that she changed her internet supplier and the internet issue is resolved as they did not need access through the same duct as the previous internet supplier.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We understand that the resident has raised another complaint with the landlord since its final response in July 2023. This includes issues of repairs to the resident’s fence, the instillation of a bedroom radiator valve and bathroom fan, the landlord’s communication regarding the resident’s gas and electric accounts and the landlord’s handling of heating repairs to the resident’s home.
  2. These matters were not included in the resident’s original complaint to the landlord or its responses, and we have therefore not assessed the landlord’s actions in relation to these as part of our investigation. The landlord must first be given the chance to investigate and respond to these issues before we can consider them. The resident can then raise a formal complaint with the landlord if she wishes to pursue her concerns further. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, she may be able to then refer the new complaint to us for consideration.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects

  1. During the defects period (12 months from the date when the property was first occupied), the resident is expected to report defects to the landlord and the developer. During this time, the landlord is responsible for identifying which of the resident’s reports are defects and therefore the responsibility of the developer to make good, and which are new repairs which the landlord is responsible for. The landlord is expected to liaise with the developer regarding the resident’s reports of defects.

Internet and TV aerial connectivity

  1. The provision of internet and television signal is not the responsibility of the landlord as a social housing provider to repair. In the circumstances of this case, the landlord’s responsibility was to contact the developer once the resident made it aware of her reports of a potential defect to the property and concerns regarding the crushed duct under the road. It was then the developer’s responsibility to respond to the resident’s reports on this matter.
  2. The landlord acted appropriately by liaising between the resident and the developer to pass information from the resident and the visits made by her own internet supplier’s engineers. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident for her internet supplier’s diagnosis of the fault in writing so that it could gain a better understanding of what they believed to be the underlying cause of the connectivity issues and to then pass this to the developer to resolve.
  3. The resident has told the Ombudsman that the landlord organised for it and the developer to complete a joint visit with her own contractor to resolve the issues with the TV aerial. She said they found the medial panel to have been wired incorrectly and then resolved the issue. It was positive the landlord did this and it demonstrated it was willing to work with the developer and resident to resolve her concerns.
  4. Although we acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by this matter as she had intermittent access to internet and television, the landlord was not responsible for resolving the internet and TV aerial connectivity issues as these issues do not fall within its repairing obligations. Furthermore, it took steps to progress the issue with the developer and as such, there was no failure by the landlord in its handling of the internet issue.

Shower switch

  1. The landlord acted appropriately by raising the resident’s concerns that the shower switch was incorrectly positioned with the developer so that it might resolve the issue in line with its obligations within the defects period. The resident has confirmed this issue was resolved. Therefore, the landlord does not need to take any further action.

Responsibility of fencing

  1. The landlord failed to provide the resident with information about the ownership of the fence around her property promptly. It acknowledged this in its stage 1 response her complaint and said it would provide this information to her. The resident had told us the landlord did eventually provide her with this information however it is unclear how long it took the landlord to do so as it has not provided necessary evidence. Overall, there was a failure by the landlord in the time taken to respond to the resident’s request about the fencing which caused her distress. The landlord should award compensation in view of this, as detailed below in this report.

6-week housing check

  1. The landlord failed to inform the resident that she would not receive a housing visit from it within 6 weeks from moving into her home despite it informing her she would. We understand this caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she delayed making reports of defects to the landlord as she intended to report them during this visit. However, this failure by the landlord was relatively minor as the resident still had other avenues to report defects with the building to the landlord such as its repairs service.

Path to rear of property

  1. The landlord acted appropriately by passing the resident’s concerns on to the developer that the passageway to the rear of the property was not wide enough and as a result she could not wheel her bin to the street. It also communicated clearly with her that it was not responsible for widening the path and that it was not a defect. However, it was positive the landlord and developer sought to explore options of widening it the best it could despite it having no obligation to do so. We acknowledge the inconvenience this issue caused the resident, however as the landlord was not responsible for widening the passageway, there was no service failure in how it handled this issue.

Instruction booklet for thermostat and outside light

  1. The landlord did not provide the resident with an instruction booklet for the thermostat until November 2023, 6 months after she moved into her home. This was a failure by the landlord as it should have done so when her tenancy began. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience especially given the booklet was for the heating, which she would have needed to use regularly.
  2. The landlord has said it posted the instruction booklet for the outside lights to the resident although it is unclear when it did this. This was a further failure by the landlord as again, it should have done so when her tenancy began. However, this failure would have had less impact as it was not related to a significant issue such as the heating.

Cupboard light

  1. The landlord was not obliged to fit a light in the cupboard and therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to refuse to do so itself. It did give the resident appropriate advice to arrange for her own electrician to do the work should she wish to.

Conclusion

  1. Overall, there was service failure by the landlord because it failed to respond promptly to the resident’s requests for the instruction booklets for the thermostat and outside lights and the responsibility of the fencing as well as completing a housing visit within 6 weeks of the resident moving into her home as it said it would.
  2. Considering the above, the landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website and which sets out our approach to compensation, for minor failings which have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.

Landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 9 working days. This was in keeping with its published timescales for complaint handling.
  2. The landlord refused to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process despite her asking it to do so a number of times. It was inappropriate for it to try and resolve the resident’s continued dissatisfaction informally as she did not agree with this approach and it did not do so promptly.
  3. The landlord’s reasons for not escalating the resident’s complaint were inappropriate and not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord should have escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its process and addressed her continued dissatisfaction and reasons for it. It did not do this, and this showed a lack of understanding by the landlord as to how important the issues of the complaint were to the resident and demonstrated it had not taken her complaint seriously. This was a significant failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint that caused her distress and inconvenience.
  4. Considering the failings identified above, we have determined there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where there has been a failure by the landlord which has adversely affected them, but there may be no permanent impact from the failing. For the reasons set out above, we have determined an order of £200 compensation is appropriate for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  5. We recommend that the landlord also carry out staff training in complaint handling to ensure that its staff know when to escalate complaints to stage 2 of its process.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings highlighted by this investigation in its handling of the resident’s reports of defects to the property and in its handling of the complaint. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident the following compensation:
      1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of defects to the property.
      2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. The landlord should provide this service with evidence to confirm it has complied with the orders above within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendation

  1. We recommend the landlord carry out staff training in complaint handling to ensure that its staff understand the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code to know when to escalate complaints to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process.