Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (202341010)

Decision
Case ID	202341010
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	27 April 2026

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord about the conduct of contractors carrying out planned works at his property on the landlord’s behalf. He also alleged that a gas safety certificate had been forged by one contractor and that another contractor had left rubble in his guttering. The landlord said it was satisfied with the contractor’s actions and that it had found no evidence to support the allegation that the gas safety certificate was forged.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlords handling of:
   1. Reports about the conduct of contractors.
   2. Reports that a gas safety certificate had been forged.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found no maladministration in the landlords handling of:
   1. Reports about the conduct of contractors.
   2. Reports that a gas safety certificate had been forged.
   3. The complaint.

Summary of reasons

Contractor conduct

5. The landlord investigated the resident’s complaint appropriately and reached reasonable conclusions.

Gas certificate

6. The landlord did not find any evidence to support the resident’s complaint that the gas safety certificate had been forged. The resident was also unable to provide evidence to support this allegation.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within its published timescales.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 August 2023	The resident complained to the landlord about the conduct of contractors arranging and carrying out planned works at his property (particularly in regard to damaging the gutters, how they contacted him, and the timing of the works conflicting with his shift work pattern). He also said he had not been provided with a breakdown of the works due to be completed and a gas contractor had forged documents. He wanted the landlord to provide compensation for the inconvenience.
15 August 2023	In its complaint response, the landlord provided the resident with a breakdown of the planned works. It acknowledged that contractors had attended the resident’s property and contacted him by telephone. However, it said there was no evidence that the contractors had provided a poor service or that gas safety documents had been forged. The landlord explained that it had liaised with the resident to arrange the start of the works and tried to accommodate his wishes where possible. It provided the contact details of relevant staff so the resident could raise any future queries directly.
24 November 2023	The resident escalated his complaint. He said contractors had harassed him by waking him after night shifts and that further works had been arranged at times that were inconvenient for him. He repeated his allegation about the gas safety check and other contractors. He again sought compensation and an apology.
22 December 2023	In its final complaint response, the landlord said that any communication by contractors with the resident was to progress the planned works. It said it had tried to accommodate the residents working pattern where possible, but that he did not provide specific information to allow them to always do so. It reiterated that there was no evidence that the gas safety documentation had been forged and said the contractors had acted considerately during the works.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought his complaint to us as he disagreed with the outcome. He said the disruption had led him to change jobs and move home. He wanted compensation and an apology from the landlord.

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	Contractor conduct
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not investigated

8. The resident raised complaint issues at stage 1 of the process about not receiving a schedule of works from the landlord. The landlord included this in its stage 1 response, but the resident did not escalate this matter further until he brought his complaint to us. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. As this matter was not addressed through the landlord’s full internal complaint procedure, we therefore have no power to investigate this issue.

What we have investigated

9. The resident complained in August and November 2023 about the conduct of contractors carrying out planned roof works at his property. He said he had asked for the works to be arranged around his shift pattern to limit disturbance and for communication to be in writing only. He said these requests were not followed. He said on one occasion, contractors knocked on his door 5 times in one day.
10. The resident also said that another contractor had kicked rubble into his guttering and had been rude when he raised this. He said appointments were deliberately arranged for times when he had worked the night before. The resident described this behaviour as harassment and said the situation caused him distress and inconvenience. He said this led him to move home and leave his job. He asked the landlord to apologise and to pay £2000 in compensation.
11. In response, the landlord said contractors initially contacted the resident by telephone and by knocking on his door. It explained this followed telephone calls made by the resident, which may have led contractors to believe this was an acceptable method of communication. The landlord said that once contractors were aware of the resident’s preferred communication method, this was followed. It also said the contractors’ accounts of the level of contact differed from the resident’s. The landlord said an inspection of the guttering carried out the day after the contractor attended did not support the resident’s account that rubble had been left there.
12. In its final complaint response in December 2023, the landlord said it had tried to accommodate the resident’s working pattern but that he had not provided specific details when asked. It said it had found no evidence of harassment and that the contractors had acted appropriately in their attempts to progress and complete the planned works.
13. The landlord’s records and accounts from contractors support its position that communications with the resident were either responses to his enquiries or attempts to arrange or complete the works. The contractors asked the resident for details of his shift pattern, but there is no evidence that this information was provided.
14. The landlord considered the impact of the works on the resident and adjusted start dates where it was able to do so. In its complaint responses, the landlord set out the schedule of works and the actions it had taken. Where it could not agree to some of the resident’s requests, it explained this was due to issues such as potential delays or increased costs for the resident and other leaseholders.
15. The landlord provided records showing the contractor inspected the guttering after the works and did not find any concrete left there. Nothing in the evidence contradicts its conclusion on this point.
16. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. It gathered accounts from staff and contractors and considered relevant email communications, which supported its explanation that it made efforts to accommodate the resident’s requests. While the planned works would have caused some disruption, there is no evidence indicating the landlord’s responses to his complaint that he was harassed by contractors or that appointments were deliberately arranged to disrupt his working pattern, were unreasonable.

Complaint	Gas certificate
Finding	No maladministration

17. The resident’s complaint included a concern that a gas safety check had been forged by the contractor. He said he had seen workers begin roof works before a gas engineer arrived to isolate the gas supply.
18. In response, the landlord explained that contractors were permitted to complete preparatory roof works that were not near the gas flue before a gas engineer attended. It said there was no evidence that the gas safety certificate had been forged and that the contractor had confirmed the works were carried out safely at all times. The landlord also said it would arrange for a different operative to attend future appointments to address the resident’s concerns.
19. The landlord has provided copies of numerous gas safety certificates which support its view that they were completed appropriately during the duration of the works. It has provided a copy of the contractor’s gas safety policy and its own gas work on roofing programmes policy. Nothing in the policies prevents preparatory work as described by the landlord being undertaken.
20. The resident acknowledged that he had no evidence to support his allegation, or that actions were undertaken that did not align with the gas safety policy.
21. In the absence of evidence to support the resident’s allegation, and with the other records the landlord had, its response to the resident’s concerns on this issue was reasonable.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

22. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 3 stage complaints process. Its policy stated it would acknowledge complaints within 3 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. It aimed to issue a stage 2 response within 25 working days. If the resident remained dissatisfied, the policy allowed escalation to a review panel or referral to the Ombudsman. The landlord has since updated its complaints policy to align with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
23. The landlord’s definition of a complaint was consistent with the Code.
24. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint 1 day outside its stated timescale, but within the timescales set out in the Code. The landlord otherwise responded to the complaint within its published timescales.

Learning

Communication and knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s communication and record keeping were appropriate in the circumstances. It engaged with the resident’s regular correspondence and generally used his stated communication preferences where possible. The landlord also maintained records of its communications with the resident, both before and during the complaint handling process.