Norwich City Council (202318315)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318315

Norwich City Council

7 March 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 repairs following a leak from the wet room.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The landlord is the local council.
The resident has osteoporosis, arthritis, asthma, tracheobronchomalacia, and fibromyalgia. The resident also uses stair lifts in the property. The landlord has said it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 2 November 2022 the resident reported a leak from her wet room. In response, the landlord logged an emergency and completed a temporary repair.
The leak caused ceiling damage to the downstairs toilet located underneath the wet room.
In November 2022 the landlord completed follow-on work to repair the leak and identified that the wet room floor needed replacing. The landlord also removed the damaged ceiling in the bathroom below.
On 15 March 2023 the wet room floor was replaced.
On 4 April 2023 the resident complaint at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. In summary, she said:
1. She was unhappy about how long it had taken to complete the works.
2. The ceiling works remained outstanding.
3. Her health had been impacted by the situation.
On 26 April 2023 the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint’s procedure. The landlord said:
1. Delays to complete the repairs were caused by its contractor being unable to locate a works order.
2. The wet room flooring was replaced on 15 March 2023
3. The ceiling works would be completed on 26 May 2023.
On the same day the resident expressed her dissatisfaction that she had to wait longer for the ceiling repair to be completed. In response, the landlord escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure.
On 11 May 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints procedure: It said:
1. The work to the ceiling was scheduled for 26 May 2023.
2. It apologised for the error and delays in scheduling the repairs.
On 26 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and said that nobody had attended to complete the ceiling repair.
On 8 June 2023 the landlord sent a second stage 2 complaint response to the resident. This further response said:
1. The repair scheduled for 26 May 2023 was cancelled because of staff sickness.
2. It rebooked the ceiling repair for 6 and 7 June 2023.
The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response. She has said the repairs have now been completed but she is seeking increased compensation in view of the length of time taken to resolve the repairs and for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has mentioned that her health was affected by the landlord’s handling of the repairs. We acknowledge the comments about her health and recognise this has been a challenging time for her. However, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health. If the resident maintains that her health was negatively affected, she may wish to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. This is explained in paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (“the Scheme”), available on our website. We can consider any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors as well as its response to the resident’s concerns about her health.
The resident complained to the landlord that the leak caused damage to her personal belongings. The landlord acted appropriately in advising the resident she could submit a liability claim to its insurance department if she believed that it was liable for this damage. Matters of liability and negligence fall outside the complaints process and the landlord is entitled to use a separate insurance process to deal with complaints of this nature. It is outside of the Ombudsman’s role to investigate liability insurance claims because the landlord’s insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord and the Ombudsman cannot look at the actions of insurers, only at the actions of the landlord. This is also explained in paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, on our website. It is noted that the resident started an insurance claim for her damaged belongings with the landlord. However, she has told us that she did not receive a response to this. Therefore, we recommend the landlord contacts the resident and provides an update on the progress of her claim.

Policies and procedures

The landlord has not provided a copy of its repairs policy. However, it has shared a link with information on its website. Its website says that it categorises repairs into the following:
1. Emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours and include repairs where there is a danger to the property or risk to the resident.
2. Urgent repairs will be completed within 5 working days
3. Routine repairs will be completed within 60 working days. Routine repairs include major specialist works, or those where non-stock materials may be required.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs

When the resident first reported a leak from her wet room, the landlord’s initial response was appropriate. It logged an emergency to complete a temporary repair. This was a reasonable course of action to take and in accordance with the approach set out on its website.
Following this repair the landlord identified the wet room floor needed to be replaced. This work was passed to one of its contractors. From here, there were delays in completing the wet room floor replacement. The evidence shows that its contractor was unable to locate the works order. This contributed to the delays in replacing the floor. When the floor was replaced, this was outside of the landlord’s timescales for a routine repair as specified on its website. When the resident complained to the landlord, it then explained the reasons for the delays, as detailed above. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide her with an explanation of what went wrong through its complaints procedure.
There is no evidence which demonstrates whether the landlord considered if the resident had access to alternative forms of bathing whilst the works to the wet room were completed. This was inappropriate and may have caused further distress to the resident.
The leak also caused damage to the ceiling in the bathroom located under the wet room. The landlord made the ceiling safe, but the resident was left with no ceiling plasterboard until further works could be completed. The evidence shows that the resident regularly chased the landlord for updates when the work to the ceiling was going to be completed. The landlord provided an appointment for this in its stage 2 complaint response, but this was cancelled due to staff sickness. Whilst this would have been frustrating for the resident, staff sickness is unavoidable and something the landlord could not have foreseen. After this, the landlord took steps to promptly rearrange the appointment for the ceiling works. This was a reasonable course of action to take.
However, there was no evidence which shows the landlord contacted the resident to tell her about the appointment cancellation. The resident said she found out about the staff sickness following a call to the landlord to check where the operatives were. This was inappropriate and the landlord should have proactively contacted the resident to tell her about the cancellation.
When the resident raised her stage 1 complaint, she told the landlord about her medical conditions and the impact the situation was having on her. She said this included difficulty breathing and additional visits to hospital. There is no evidence which shows the landlord acknowledged this or considered the heightened impact the situation may have been having on her due to her disabilities at both stages of its complaints procedure. This was wrong.
Despite the above, in its submissions to this service the landlord has said it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or her household. This is of further concern to the Ombudsman due to the fact that the resident told the landlord about her disabilities when she raised her complaint on 4 April 2023. It is important to note that under the Equalities Act 2010, landlords have a duty to make reasonable adjustments where a disability has been disclosed to it. The landlord is ordered to contact the resident and update the medical information it holds (if she consents to this) and consider how this may affect future service delivery for her and the wider household.
Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs following the leak from her wet room. In considering what steps the landlord now needs to take to put things right, the Ombudsman refers to our own remedies guidance, available on our website. The guidance says that we may order compensation payments where maladministration has been found in the region of £100-£600. Although the landlord apologised for the delays through its complaints procedure and took steps to complete the repairs, it did not fully acknowledge its failings and made no offer of compensation to resolve the resident’s complaint. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident £500 in compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its errors. This amount also factors in the landlord’s failure to acknowledge or fully consider the heightened distress and inconvenience caused due to her disabilities, as explained above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs following the leak in her wet room.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in its handling of repairs following the leak.
  1. Compensation payments should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any potential rent arrears.
2. Contact the resident to update the medical information it holds for her and the household (if she consents).

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord contacts the resident to update her on the progress of her liability insurance claim.