Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Nottingham City Council (202234937)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234937

Nottingham City Council

10 June 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 leaks.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord in a flat in a block. The resident in the property above, where the leaks originated from, is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 June 2022 to report a leak from the property above. The repair records show it completed a repair on 14 June 2022. The resident reported the issue again on 22 June 2022. The landlord attended the same day to fix the leak.
  3. The resident reported a leak from the property above on 5 September 2022. The evidence shows the landlord attended on 08 September 2022. The landlord attended on 11, 12, and 15 September 2022.
  4. The resident made a complaint on 21 September 2022. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of leaks, and she had to report them “multiple” times before the landlord took action. She said the leak was ongoing. The landlord attended on 27 September 2022 to fix the leak, and completed further repairs on 28 September 2022. The resident reported a leak again on 30 September 2022. The landlord attended the same day and fixed the leak.
  5. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 3 October 2022. It said:
    1. It gave a history of its attendances and said it repaired the leak on 15 September 2022. It then reattended on 28 September 2022 due to “re occurring issues” and the leak was resolved.
    2. It had fixed a leak “not related” to the first leak on 30 September 2022.
    3. It upheld the complaint and apologised for the “stress and inconvenience” the issue caused.
    4. It had tried to inspect the damage to the property on 29 September 2022, but was unable to get access. It asked the resident to get in touch to book an inspection.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint on 7 November 2022. She said its investigation has only considered 2 occasions it attended to fix the leak. She said she was unhappy the complaint was upheld, but she was not offered compensation.
  7. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 23 December 2022. It said:
    1. It took longer to resolve the leak than it “envisioned”. It said IT issues, poor communication, and access issues to the property above caused the delays.
    2. It would take away 2 metres of damaged ceiling and renew it. It had planned to complete the repair on 19 December 2023. But it had cancelled this appointment at the resident’s request. It asked her to get in touch to book the repair.
    3. It upheld the complaint, apologised for its handling of the leak repairs, and offered £50 in compensation.
    4. It advised it had sent a claim form for the resident to make a claim for damaged possessions as a result of the leak.

Events after the complaint process

  1. The landlord completed a repairs to the ceiling in March 2023.
  2. The landlord attempted to inspect the resident’s property in April and August 2023. The evidence indicates it was unable to inspect the property, as the resident was not in.
  3. The resident contacted us on 31 October 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord had patched the ceiling but she wanted it to do further works so it matched the “artex” finish of the rest of the ceiling.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident in January 2023. It said it had provided a claim form for further repairs. It said as she was a leaseholder this was “standard process” as she was responsible for repairs.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks

  1. The resident’s lease agreement states she is responsible for repairs within the property. The lease agreement states the landlord is responsible for repairs to the exterior of the property, including drains, gutters, and external pipes.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy states it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. It describes leaks from water/heating pipes as an emergency repair. Its policy says it will attend to priority repairs within 7 days but up to a maximum of 30 working days.
  3. The evidence shows the landlord was first on notice about a leak from the property above the resident’s on 10 June 2022. There was a delay in attending to the leak at the time. This was unreasonable and inconvenienced the resident. We have seen an internal landlord email from 10 June 2022 that said it was the responsibility of the residents living in the property to report the repair so it could ensure access. This approach was unreasonable. The landlord was aware of an emergency repair it was responsible for. The above approach delayed its response. This was unreasonable, and led to a 3 day delay in resolving the leak.
  4. The landlord attended to fix a leak on 22 June 2022, the same day it was reported. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it did not adopt the same approach as outlined above. This was reasonable and evidence it adopted a more appropriate approach to the repair.
  5. When the resident reported a leak again on 5 September 2022, it failed to attend that day. Its repair records indicate a “system errors” that caused the issue. This delay meant the landlord did not attend until 7 September 2022. This was outside of its emergency repair target timeframe. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. While not a lengthy delay, the leak was evidently distressing for the resident. The delay may have increased the distress she experienced.
  6. The evidence shows the leak required multiple repairs visits and was not initially resolved until 28 September 2022. While evidently frustrating for the resident, the repair appeared to be more complex than first thought. The evidence show the landlord attended on 6 occasions in an attempt to resolve the leak. On each occasion it attended within 24 hours, in line with its target timeframe. It was evidently frustrating for the resident it took more than 1 visit to fix the leak. However, the landlord attended promptly which is evidence it took the resident’s reports seriously.
  7. The landlord attended on 30 September 2022 to fix another leak. This was the same day the resident reported the issue. This was reasonable in the circumstances and in line with its target timeframes for emergency repairs.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was inappropriate. It lacked detail about its handling of the leak repairs in September 2022. It was also silent on the repairs from June 2022. This was unreasonable considering the resident had raised concerns about its handling of the leaks from June and September 2022. It failed to assess its handling of the leaks in the appropriate detail. This inconvenienced the resident.
  9. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response upheld the complaint and apologised for its handling of the leaks. It was unreasonable it did not offer compensation for its admitted failings. It missed an opportunity to show learning, build trust, and put things right for the resident.
  10. The resident claimed her kitchen units and flooring were damaged by the leak. The landlord sent the resident a claim form so she could pursue a claim through its insurer. This was appropriate in the circumstances. It is unclear if the resident provided a completed claim form to the landlord.
  11. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response gave a greater level of detail about its handling of the leaks. This was appropriate and went some way to putting right the shortcomings of its stage 1 complaint response. Again, it was silent on its handling of the leak from June 2022. This was a shortcoming in its response.
  12. About its handling of the leak from September 2022 the landlord showed transparency and learning. It gave an explanation of what caused the delays, apologised and offered compensation. This was appropriate in the circumstances and went some way to putting right the shortcomings of its stage 1 complaint response.
  13. The evidence shows the landlord sought to complete making good works to the ceiling in December 2022. The resident cancelled this repair due to the proximity to the Christmas holiday period. The delay at this stage was not the fault of the landlord. The landlord appropriately used its stage 2 complaint response to encourage the resident to book the repair in the new year. This is evidence it was taking the repair seriously and sought to progress with the repair, while accommodating the resident’s request to delay it.
  14. The evidence shows the landlord instructed its repairs team to progress with the repair on 5 January 2023. This is evidence it was proactive in trying to progress the repair. However, we have seen no evidence the repairs team sought to book the repair at the time. This was unreasonable and inconvenienced the resident. The evidence shows the landlord completed ceiling repairs on 20 March 2023. This was outside of its target timeframes which inconvenienced the resident.
  15. The evidence shows the resident was unhappy the ceiling repair did not match the original artex finish of the rest of the ceiling. We have seen evidence the landlord sought to inspect the property on 3 April 2023, and 16 August 2023 but was unable to access the resident’s property. We have seen evidence the resident expressed dissatisfaction about its handling of the inspections and claimed she was not given adequate notice of the visits. She claimed she was not in and was at work. We have not been provided with evidence the landlord did give notice of the visits. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude the resident’s claim was accurate.
  16. We welcome the fact the landlord sought to complete further inspections of the property related to the resident’s concerns. However, she was inconvenienced by it attending without appropriate notice, and the subsequent need to re raise the issue. Also, it would have been appropriate, having accepted liability for the ceiling repairs, for the repair to the ceiling to have left it in uniform condition. That it did not do so inconvenienced the resident.
  17. The evidence shows the landlord changed its position in January 2024. This was unreasonable given it had already accepted liability for the repair in its complaint responses. It said the resident would need to submit a claim form as it needed to assess liability before it would complete further repairs. We note the landlord’s position about alleged damage to the kitchen units and flooring was consistent throughout. Its position was also reasonable considering the circumstances. However, to change its position on the ceiling repairs was unreasonable. It must replaster the resident’s ceiling now.
  18. As a result of the failings identified above, we have decided the landlord’s offer of £50 in compensation did not fully put things right for the resident. This is because matters were outstanding at the time of its final offer and there were further failings in its communication. We have therefore determined there was maladministration in its handling of the matter.
  19. 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 they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. For the reasons set out above we have determined an order for a further £200 is appropriate to put things right for the resident. This is in addition to the £50 it already offered.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this decision the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £250 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of her reports of leaks. It should deduct the £50 it offered if already paid.
    3. Replaster the ceiling affected by the leak.