Norwich City Council (202325705)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325705

Norwich City Council

19 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The repairs to the kitchen waste pipe.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord in October 2022. His property was a 2 bedroom flat, and the landlord was a local authority. The resident informed this service that he has since moved to a new property, but he was a tenant of the landlord during the time of this complaint. The resident informed the landlord that he has several mental health conditions and is receiving treatment for those.
The landlord raised a job to inspect the resident’s kitchen waste pipe on 2 February 2023 and inspected it on 27 February 2023. Following the inspection, the operative asked for a manager to attend, which he did on 30 May 2023. The landlord received the quote for the required repairs from the contractor on 23 June 2023 and installed new pipework to the manhole on 27 July 2023. It tried to remove the redundant kitchen waste pipe on 11 September 2023, but the resident was not home.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 7 September 2023. His complaint was about being unable to install a cooker because of the location of the kitchen waste pipe. He said he had no alternative cooking facilities for the previous 11 months and requested for the landlord to relocate the kitchen waste pipe. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on the same day.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 22 September 2023, and said:
1. It raised a job to inspect the kitchen waste pipe on 2 February 2023 and inspected the issue on 27 February 2023. At the operative’s request a supervisor inspected the issue on 30 May 2023.
2. In May 2023 it awarded £150 to the resident from its housing support fund (HSF), which provides crisis support to residents. It also said that it would be in touch with the resident on 18 September 2023, to discuss using the HSF to provide him with a microwave.
3. On 19 July 2023 it raised the repairs and completed the works on 27 July 2023. It said that it installed a new bottle gully and pipework to the manhole.
4. On 11 September 2023, it attended the property to remove the redundant waste pipe, but the resident was not home. It acknowledged there was a system error, and it raised a new job. It said it booked a repair appointment for 9 October 2023.
5. It apologised for the delay in resolving the matter.
On 9 October 2023 the landlord attended the property to remove the redundant waste pipe, but the resident was not home. It said it did an external inspection but could not locate the redundant waste pipe. The landlord visited the resident on 16 October 2023, and located the redundant kitchen waste pipe, it also supported the resident in making a formal complaint.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 17 October 2023. His complaint was about having no cooker for a year because the landlord had failed to relocate the kitchen waste pipe. He also said that he had reported the issues on several occasions. As a resolution he was seeking for the landlord to complete the repairs and compensate him for the costs he incurred by not being able to install a cooker in the property. The landlord logged his complaint on the following day.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 20 October 2023, and said:
1. The resident confirmed that on 9 October 2023, it did not complete the works to remove the redundant waste pipe as planned. It said that its operative attended but the resident was not at home.
2. On 17 October 2023 it provided information to the resident on making a compensation request for the costs he incurred by not having a cooker in the property.
3. It booked a repair appointment with the resident to remove the redundant kitchen waste pipe on 23 October 2023.
4. It apologised for the delays in resolving the matter and the inconvenience and distressed this caused to the resident.
On 23 October 2023 the landlord removed the redundant kitchen waste pipe.
The resident raised a complaint with this service on 26 October 2023. He said he did not have cooking facilities for 385 days and his landlord only offered him an apology. He confirmed he wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
The resident raised a stage 2 complaint with the landlord on 26 October 2023. He said that the landlord knew about the issue before he moved into the property. He elaborated that it was not reasonable to be without substantial cooking facilities for over a year. He explained that the issue caused him distress, inconvenience, time and effort, and requested the landlord to pay him £6000 compensation to reflect the impact on him.
Between December 2023 and January 2024, this service supported the resident in chasing the landlord for a response to his stage 2 complaint. On 5 January 2024 the landlord contacted us and asked for an extension to response to the resident’s complaint, it said it would respond by 9 January 2024.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 8 January 2024, and said:
1. It reiterated the actions it took to resolve the problem and confirmed that it had removed the redundant kitchen waste pipe on 23 October 2023.
2. It explained that although it provided information to the resident on how to make a compensation claim, he had not sent copies of receipts of the costs he incurred.
3. It worked out the cost of take aways and microwave meals between February 2023 and October 2023 and offered to pay £2000 compensation to the resident. It explained this was equivalent to £10 a day. In addition, it offered £140 compensation for the impact of the delay in resolving the matter and the delay in responding to his stage 2 complaint.
4. It apologised to the resident for its failings and the distress and inconvenience caused to him.
The resident informed this service that the landlord had miscalculated the compensation. He explained that, based on what the landlord said, the compensation should have been higher. He also shared with us that he had been without a cooker for a year. As a resolution to his complaint, he was seeking for the landlord to compensate him for the time he was without a cooker and not just from February 2023. He could not confirm when he first reported the repair, but he believed the landlord would have known about the issue prior to him moving in.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

We recognise the resident reported that having no cooker for a prolonged period impacted on his mental health. Although we can consider the impact that the issues raised had on the resident, and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s actions may have contributed to or exacerbated any physical and/or mental health issues. These are legal aspects better suited to a personal injury claim or the court.

The repairs to the kitchen waste pipe.

The landlord’s website explains that it will aim to complete urgent repairs within 5 working days and routine repairs within 60 days. It explains that an urgent repair is a repair that may affect the resident’s ability to live comfortably in their property. A routine repair is a repair that does not adversely affect the resident’s use of their home.
In this case, the resident reported that he had no cooker since he moved into the property in 2022. He explained that the location of the kitchen waste pipe prevented him from installing his cooker. The resident could not remember when he reported the problem to his landlord, but he believes it would have known about the issue prior to him moving in because the previous resident would have had the same problem.
However, the evidence shows that in February 2022, the previous resident asked the landlord for authorisation to move the kitchen waste pipe so that he could install his new dryer. The landlord authorised him to do this in March 2022, and we saw no evidence that the new location of the waste pipe became an issue for the previous resident. We also saw no evidence that the landlord had reasons to suspect that the new location of the waste pipe would become an issue for the resident once he moved in. Therefore, we cannot determine there was a failure by the landlord in relocating the kitchen waste pipe prior to the resident moving in because it did not know about the issue.
The evidence shows that shortly after he moved into the property in October 2022, the resident raised several repairs with the landlord. However, we saw no evidence that he raised the issue with the location of the kitchen waste pipe prior to the landlord raising a job to inspect it on 2 February 2023. While it is unclear how the landlord became aware of the issue, without evidence of the resident reporting it prior to that date, it is reasonable to conclude that this was when the landlord became aware of the problem.
We recognise it is unclear what triggered the inspection of the kitchen waste pipe in February 2023. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident discussed the issue with the landlord. Throughout the duration of the complaint, the resident consistently explained that the location of the kitchen waste pipe prevented him from installing his cooker and that he had no alternative cooking arrangements.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that when raising the issue with the landlord, the resident would have explained why the location of the kitchen waste pipe was a problem. Consequently, in keeping with the information on its website, the landlord should have considered this was an urgent repair. This is because the kitchen waste pipe prevented the resident from installing his cooker, which would have affected his ability to live comfortably in his property.
The evidence shows that the landlord inspected the kitchen waste pipe 17 working days after it raised the repair, and the operative requested for a supervisor to attend. A supervisor inspected the problem on 30 May 2023, this was 79 working days after it raised the repair. Those were unreasonable delays by the landlord. Its actions were not in keeping with its repairs policy to complete urgent repairs within 5 working days. This caused inconvenience to the resident who reported being unable to cook a nutritional meal during that time.
We recognise that once it inspected the problem, the landlord requested a quote from its contractor for the remedial repairs, which it received on 23 June 2023. The evidence shows that it then took a month for the landlord to raise the repair. We understand the landlord was discussing the quote internally before accepting it and this took time. However, given that the landlord knew about the issue 4 months earlier, and considering the impact of the situation on the resident, the landlord should have made its decision sooner. Its lack of urgency further delayed resolving the problem, which was unreasonable and caused further inconvenience to the resident.
The evidence shows that once it completed the repair in July 2023, there were further delays in resolving the matter. In September 2023 and October 2023, the resident was not home when the landlord attended to remove the redundant kitchen waste pipe. While we understand this was out of the landlord’s control, the evidence shows there were delays in rebooking some of the repair appointments. For example, following its visit on 11 September 2023, the landlord booked the next appointment for 28 days later. While we understand this was because of a system error, it should have acted sooner. This further delayed a resolution to the problem, which was unreasonable.
In May 2023 and in September 2023, the landlord accessed its HSF to provide financial support to the resident. This helped the resident towards the costs of meals and a microwave. We also understand that it used its discretion by accessing the HSF twice to help the resident, which was outside its normal procedure for the fund. While those were reasonable actions by the landlord, it should have considered this sooner. It should have made those offers to the resident when it became aware that he did not have the facilities to cook a meal because of the issue with the kitchen waste pipe. This was unreasonable by the landlord, it should have considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and how the situation impacted on him.
We recognise that during its internal complaint process (ICP) the landlord acknowledged its failings and apologised to the resident. We also recognise that the landlord made attempts to put things right. Those were reasonable actions from the landlord.
Nevertheless, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the kitchen waste pipe. While we understand the landlord made attempts to resolve the issue, 8 months to complete the repairs was unreasonable. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s published timeframe to complete such repairs. The landlord’s failings caused significant inconvenience to the resident who raised 2 formal complaints about it. The resident also reported that this caused him significant distress. He explained that he was unable to install his cooker or cook nutritional meals for himself, which impacted on his mental health and wellbeing.
We recognise that the landlord offered to pay the resident compensation to reflect the impact of its failings, which in this case was appropriate. We also recognise that the landlord used its discretion in applying its compensation policy by calculating the compensation based on what it would offer for a loss of amenities. It showed that it understood the impact of not having a cooker on the resident and concluded this amounted to a loss of amenity. This was reasonable by the landlord, this was in keeping with its compensation policy to consider each claim on its own merit.
In its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord offered to pay £10 compensation a day to the resident towards the costs of takeaways and microwaves meals. It explained this was in relation to costs incurred by the resident between 2 February 2023 and 23 October 2023 and offered £2000 to him. However, the period it offered compensation for was equivalent to 263 days, and based on the landlord’s calculation, this amounted to £2630. The landlord did not explain its reasons for offering less, therefore it is reasonable to conclude this was an error and we are making an order for the landlord to rectify this.
Additionally, the landlord offered the resident £140 to reflect the impact of the delay in completing the repairs and responding to the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord did not say how much of the compensation related to the delay in resolving the repair to the kitchen waste pipe, which would have been useful. Nevertheless, it is our opinion that the compensation it offered did not fully reflect the impact of its failings on the resident. Therefore, in keeping with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, we are ordering the landlord to pay £200 compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay in resolving the problem.

The associated complaint

The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) outlines the requirements for landlords to operate effective complaint handling. It states that landlords must respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. It also states that if a landlord needs more time to respond, it must agree an extension with the resident. The evidence shows that the landlord’s complaint policy is in keeping with the Code. In addition, its complaint policy says that it will escalate a complaint to stage 2 if it has been responded to as part of its stage 1 process.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 7 September 2023. His complaint was about being unable to install his cooker because of the location of the kitchen waste pipe and the landlord’s handling of the repairs. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on the same day and responded 11 working days later. This was reasonable by the landlord. While its response was slightly outside its published timeframe, this did not amount to a service failure by the landlord.
On 17 October 2023 the resident raised a new complaint to the landlord. His complaint was about the same issue he complained about in September 2023. While the landlord logged his complaint the following day, it did not show that it considered this was an escalation to his previous complaint. Instead, it logged his new complaint as a stage 1. This was not in keeping with its complaints policy to escalate a complaint to stage 2 when it had responded to it at stage 1. This was unreasonable from the landlord and this avoidable delay prevented the resident accessing our service earlier.
The evidence shows that once it logged the resident’s second complaint, it responded 2 days later. This was reasonable from the landlord. It responded to the resident’s complaint in keeping with its complaint policy and the Code.
On 26 October 2023 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. Following the resident contacting us because he had not received a response to his complaint, we wrote to the landlord asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 4 January 2024. It should not take the involvement of this service for landlords to respond to a resident’s complaint. The landlord should have responded to his complaint without our involvement. Its lack of actions was unreasonable and caused inconvenience to the resident, who had to ask us for support in seeking a response to his complaint.
We recognise that the landlord contacted us on 5 January 2024, asking for more time to respond to the resident’s complaint. We saw no evidence that it discussed an extension with the resident, which was not in keeping with its complaint policy nor the Code. It should have discussed the matter with the resident instead of us, and agreed with him when it would respond to his complaint. Its failing to do this was unreasonable.
The evidence shows that the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 January 2024, 29 working days outside its published timeframe. This was unreasonable from the landlord, especially as it did not show that it had been in contact with the resident about his complaint during that period. Its actions were not in keeping with its complaint policy nor the Code.
We recognise that the landlord offered to pay compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of the delay in responding to his complaint. As previously mentioned in this report, it offered the resident £140 to reflect the impact of the delay in completing the repairs and responding to the resident’s complaint. However, it did not say how much of the compensation related to the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. Therefore, we cannot determine the landlord’s offer amounted to reasonable redress.
After considering the evidence of the case, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. We recognise that it responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaints in keeping with its complaint policy. However, it failed to escalate the resident’s complaint on 17 October 2023. It also failed to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint in keeping with its published timeframe. Its failing caused inconvenience to the resident, who had to ask us for support in seeking a response to his complaint.
In keeping with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, we order the landlord to pay £125 compensation to the resident to reflect the inconvenience caused to him.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to the kitchen waste pipe.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, we order the landlord to pay £2955 directly to the resident. This is inclusive of the landlord’s offer at stage 2 of the complaint process, and it should deduct any compensation it has already paid from this amount. The compensation is equivalent to:
1. £2630 to compensate the resident for the amount of time he was unable to install a cooker.
2. £200 compensation to reflect the impact of its failings in completing the repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
3. £125 compensation to reflect the impact of its complaint handling failings on the resident.