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

Cambridge City Council (202230973)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230973

Cambridge City Council

13 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:
    1. Repairs to ceilings in the property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy began on 14 June 2010. The property is a 3-bedroom house where she lives with her daughter. She is listed as having medical vulnerabilities.
  2. The landlord conducted an inspection on 26 July 2022 as part of health and safety works. This identified polystyrene ceiling tiles and roses in various rooms which presented a possible risk in the event of a fire and required removing. The landlord arranged for this work to be completed via its contractor.
  3. Following this initial inspection, the work took place on 27 October 2022. On 3 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to enquire if they now intended to repair and replaster the ceilings as the removal of the tiles had exposed a ceiling in a poor state of repair. She explained this was partly due to a previous bathroom leak soaking through and affecting the plaster which resulted in debris falling on to kitchen surfaces and visible cracks throughout.
  4. The landlord responded on 7 November 2022 and booked a survey for 22 November 2022. Following this survey, the landlord instructed a contractor to quote for the reskimming of the hallway, bathroom and kitchen ceilings.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 further occasions following the survey before logging a complaint on 7 February 2023. In the complaint, she cited the wait time for the 4 ceilings to be repaired, along with the potential danger to her and her daughter’s health from the pieces of plaster falling on to the kitchen surfaces while food was being prepared.
  6. In its stage 1 response issued on 20 February 2023, the landlord confirmed that the replastering work was completed as of 13 February 2023. It apologised for the delays and for incorrect information around responsibility for the ceiling repairs initially. It offered a £25 decorating voucher as compensation.
  7. The resident escalated the complaint on 13 June 2023, explaining that the ceiling issue resulted in her being forced to temporarily close her catering business that she ran from the property. She was also being forced to cook in an area that was displaying patches of mould, as well as preparing family meals in a microwave to avoid debris falling into the food. She expressed concerns about the work being categorised as a routine repair, along with now requiring a food and safety inspection that would cost £198 to re–open her business.
  8. In its stage 2 resolution on 2 August 2023, the landlord apologised that the resident had cause to complain. It offered to reimburse the food inspection fee and raise a cheque for this.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 6 December 2023. She stated she was facing difficulties in getting the £25 decorating voucher re-issued due to the original being mislaid.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s policies highlight its responsibility to keep tenanted and leased housing properties safe and free from health hazards. This includes issues related to damp and condensation. A surveyor will evaluate if the case should be considered routine, urgent or an emergency using their risk assessment and findings on inspection. Routine and urgent cases will be addressed within their normal agreed timescales for repairs – routine works being 28 working days and urgent being 3 working days.
  2. Its complaints policy says it aims to respond to cases raised within 10 working days of receiving them at both stage 1 and upon escalation to stage 2 if applicable. It adds that sometimes cases are complex and require more than 10 days to investigate. If this is the case, the person investigating the complaint will contact the complainant to advise them of a new target date for a response.

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has referred to the effect that this situation had on her and her family’s health. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the wider impact of any failings by the landlord, including any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Repairs to ceilings in the property

  1. Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in good repair. It must ensure that the property remains fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy. The landlord must look at the condition of its properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. 
  2. The resident raised concerns on 3 November 2022. She said there was debris falling from the ceiling and large cracks. This situation was due to the landlord identifying the need to remove polystyrene ceiling tiles and roses in several rooms. Due to the nature of the work required to remove the tiles, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to identify the need to ‘make good’ any surfaces and arrange necessary follow on works. If the landlord had been more pro-active and advised what follow-on works it would do, the resident would not have needed to chase it up the following week.
  3. Nevertheless, the landlord responded within 2 working days of the resident’s initial email, with a survey booked to take place 2 weeks later. This illustrates an appropriate and prompt response from the landlord to address and resolve the resident’s concerns.
  4. Following the inspection on 22 November 2022, the landlord arranged for its contractor to quote for re-skimming the effected ceilings. It had raised these works to be completed within routine repair timescales. Following this survey, the records show that between 22 November 2022 and 2 February 2023, the resident chased the required works on 3 separate occasions, questioning why this was not an emergency given plaster was falling on to kitchen surfaces, impacting food preparation.
  5. This demonstrates a breakdown in communication with the resident. It is reasonable to assume the landlord’s surveyor should have risk assessed the ceiling during the survey in line with its policies to decide if a routine repair timescale was acceptable. However, it is clear from the evidence that this was not communicated to the resident, nor was the information regarding its contractor being asked to quote for the repair or the wait time involved. This breakdown in communication led to the resident raising a formal complaint and demonstrates a service failure.
  6. In both of its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged the delays in completing the repairs. It compensated for this in the form of a £25 decorating voucher and a reimbursement of £198 for the food inspection charge. While it was appropriate to offer the resident compensation for the delays, the landlord has not fully recognised the extent of the delay and related distress this situation had caused.
  7. The Ombudsman acknowledges the prompt response taken in raising and attending to the resident’s initial repair request. However, once the contractor’s quotation was requested, there was a gap of 10 weeks until anything was communicated to her. The landlord failed to acknowledge her difficulties in using the kitchen area and the subsequent effect to her business during this time. While an acknowledgement of the delays has been made, no compensation was awarded for the service failure beyond reimbursement for out of pocket expenses. As such, it should pay an additional £100 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £50 for resident’s time and trouble.
    2. £50 for distress and inconvenience caused.
  8. The resident reported that during the repairs she had misplaced the £25 decorating voucher, only to find it once it had expired. She reported this to the landlord on 21 July 2023. The landlord advised it would look into re–issuing a voucher. It is not clear from the information provided if the landlord has resolved this. As such, a recommendation has been made below.

The associated complaint

  1. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure, good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.
  2. The resident first raised her complaint on 7 February 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 February 2023. This is within the 10 working days timescale highlighted in its policies.
  3. The resident requested a complaint escalation on 13 June 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 resolution on 2 August 2023. In its response, the landlord again apologised for the delay in the repairs being completed. It also acknowledged the additional costs incurred by the resident and reimbursed these.
  4. The evidence provided to this Service does not include an acknowledgement of the resident’s escalation request. There is also no evidence an extension was sought despite the stage 2 resolution being provided 36 working days after escalation. The landlord’s policy states it aims to resolve and respond within 10 working days or seek an extension. Its response was not only outside of this timescale but also lacked the kind of detail that is required in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, including the decision and reasons for that decision.
  5. Overall, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. It did not follow its policies during the complaint process. It did not acknowledge the delays in its response or consider the impact this may have caused the resident. Its stage 2 response lacked depth and did not demonstrate there was a thorough investigation. As such, the landlord should pay compensation of £75 reflective of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to ceilings in the property.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide an apology for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £175 in compensation. This is comprised of:
      1. £50 for time and trouble caused by the failings in its handling of repairs to ceilings in the property.
      2. £50 for distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of repairs to ceilings in the property.
      3. £75 for distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
    3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that, if it has not done so already, the landlord re–issue the resident the £25 decorating voucher offered in its stage 1 response.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regard to the above recommendation.