A man who says he was "left to die" has hit out at Stevenage Borough Council after "severe maladministration" was found in their handling of his case.

James [not his real name], who has cardiac issues, was living in a fifth floor council flat with a faulty intercom system that repeatedly delayed ambulances trying to reach him.

The problem was only fixed after James instructed a solicitor, 18 months after he had moved into the flat.

After the Housing Ombudsman found "severe maladministration" on the part of the council, they were ordered to apologise and pay him compensation.

But James remains unhappy with their treatment of him, and has told the Comet why he is "very aggrieved" with the council.

He believes that the council "would have left me to die in that flat, and done that quite happily", and says the experience has "completely destroyed" his self-confidence.

James recalled that "the pivotal point came when I had a heart attack in the flat - the ambulance service had to wait for the fire service to get them into the main door".

"I remember vividly being in agony and hearing the sirens of the rapid response paramedic then the ambulance then a fire engine ... it felt like a lifetime laying on the floor waiting."

He says that he would think of his son on those "vividly remembered" occasions "when my chest would start to feel like someone is sitting on it and I was waiting in pain panicking because I knew any one of these episodes could be my last".

"It was horrendous and extremely frightening."

According to James, on one occasion a paramedic told him to complain about the issue, said that he "did not understand how serious it was", and added that he would "die over a stupid intercom". He told James "how upsetting this was for him, knowing that one day he would be waiting outside while I died."

James believes that he only reached some kind of resolution because of his "dogged determination", and adds that he wouldn't "put up and shut up" because "the council is supposedly a public service, they're funded by our taxpayers money".

"I was paying them to make me feel worthless, my life was in constant danger, and in my opinion that is not right."

He said that the complaints process run by the council "is shrouded in mystery", and "made so difficult that 99 per cent of people give up".

"How is it right that the only reason I actually got an intercom handset was because I instructed a solicitor?

"I have no doubt that if I had given up I would have died in that flat, and that the council's pure negligence was only stopped by my determination."

An internal email in the council, sent shortly after James instructed a solicitor, saw one staff member ask another if they had any vacant properties with working handsets because they'd "got an issue where we are being sued for disrepair & need to steal the handset from it".

James also criticised the council's response to the Ombudsman's report, stating that he only received their apology via email and questioning its wording: "I am sorry that you had the need to escalate to that level".

He says the council "did not help me financially to move - in fact they did the opposite".

According to James, he was initially offered hotel accommodation, but only after he had instructed a solicitor to act on his behalf. He refused the offer because he did not want to live without a kitchen.

A council officer then told him that for him to stay in the flat, he would have to have a Careline emergency system installed, apparently without telling him that this would cost £7 per week - a cost James had to bear for the year it took for him to be rehoused. James says that Careline was "not fit for purpose", with multi-day waits - he adds that he "would have died long before their response".

James says that the ordeal "broke" him financially, as when he moved - at the council's request - his bank account was "emptied" because housing benefit can only be paid for one property. Again, he adds that he was not made aware of this prior to moving.

The Ombudsman suggested that James "may wish to seek legal advice" about the possibility of a personal injury claim relating to the health issues he says he has suffered as a result of the council's inaction.

And, while James has so far chosen not to go through a separate council complaints procedure - saying he is still "reeling" from the previous ordeal - he hopes that his case shows that people "should not put up with substandard housing".

He concludes: "The council spends a lot of time, effort and money ensuring any employee or contractor entering a council property complies with very strict health and safety policies, yet their tenants' health and safety appears not to be taken into consideration."

Stevenage Borough Council declined to comment on this story.

Following the Ombudsman's decision, a spokesperson for the council had said: "We always aim to work collaboratively with our tenants and once issues are reported to resolve these as efficiently and effectively as possible.

"Sadly, on this occasion, it would appear that this resident hasn’t received an adequate service, for which we sincerely apologise.

"We acknowledge that this case was not dealt with in the appropriate manner and would like to reiterate that the safety of our tenants is of paramount importance to us.

"Throughout this process, we have taken on board the learnings which have resulted in the implementation of new procedures and changes to our processes to ensure this situation does not occur again."