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

Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited (202206302)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206302

Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited

11 November 2022


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 a water leak through his ceiling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident resides in a one bedroom flat, in a block of similar flats.
  2. The resident reported that there was a leak in his bathroom ceiling which appeared to be coming from the property above. In January 2022 the landlord attended the property to assess the leak, but advised that there was asbestos in the ceiling and it would need to remove this prior to any repair work.
  3. The resident subsequently complained, as the leak had not been repaired. The resident stated the leak was coming through the lights and the shower cord. In addition, the paint was coming off the ceiling. The resident raised concerns that this was a health hazard. In addition, the landlord had missed an appointment which was scheduled, without contacting the resident. As a resolution, he wanted the asbestos to be removed and the leak to be fixed.
  4. The landlord stated it had no record to suggest the resident had been informed that an appointment would be completed on 4 May 2022, but apologised for any miscommunication. It further stated that on 9 May 2022 it attended to remove the asbestos and on 13 May 2022 it attended the upstairs neighbour’s property to repair the source of the leak. It contacted the resident on 16 May 2022 to agree an installation date for the new ceiling, but due to the resident not being available on weekdays, it needed to organise the work to be completed on a weekend. The landlord provided the resident with an appointment on 9 July 2022 for this to be installed.
  5. The landlord attended the property on 9 July 2022 and installed the new ceiling.
  6. The resident referred this matter to this Service on 31 August 2022. The resident remained unhappy with the way the landlord handled the repairs process. As a resolution the resident requested compensation for six months of rent and compensation for the impact on his physical and mental health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident has expressed concerns regarding the effects the asbestos has caused to his health and the impact of this on his mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns about his health; however, it is outside the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether the landlord’s actions or inaction affected the resident’s health. Matters of liability for damage to health and wellbeing are not part of the complaints process and are more suitable for consideration through the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) or the courts. This is in line with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and how the landlord responded to his concerns about his health.

Assessment.

  1. The landlord’s website states that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours of being reported. It provides examples of emergency repairs, in which leaks are included. In addition, this repair also should have been deemed an emergency due to the residents reports that it was affecting the electrical fittings in the ceiling which could potentially have caused an immediate danger. For emergency repairs the issue should be made safe during the first visit within 24 hours although further visits may be required to carry out a more lasting repair. There is evidence to suggest that the landlord attended the property on 7 January 2022 and made the electrical fittings safe. Therefore, the landlord attended within its policy obligations for emergency repairs.
  2. After the electrics had been made safe, the repair priority would then be recategorized as a routine repair because although the ceiling still needed to be repaired there was no longer an immediate risk to health and safety. Therefore, the landlord should then have reattended the property within 28 working days, as per its repair responsibilities and industry best practice. However, the evidence suggests that nobody attended the resident’s property until 9 May 2022 to begin the repairs. Therefore, the landlord failed to attend the property and complete the repair within a reasonable timeframe.
  3. The landlord was delayed in its repair of leak due to the need to have the asbestos removed by a trained professional before the ceiling could be repaired. The landlord explained to the resident in its complaint response that it did not have an internal contractor able to complete the asbestos removal, and as such, it needed to arrange for a third-party contractor to complete this work. This would have inevitably caused a delay in the repair, which was outside of the landlord’s control. However, the landlord should have kept in contact with the resident to inform him of why the delays were occurring and when he could expect the repair to be completed.
  4. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord attempted to arrange the asbestos removal in January 2022, when it first visited the property. The only evidence provided suggests that the landlord began to make arrangements for the asbestos removal once the resident had submitted his complaint. This is not in-line with the landlord’s repairs obligations as it should have begun to arrange the asbestos removal as soon as it became aware this was needed, although it is understood that it could take some time to arrange this with a specialist contractor due to the contractor’s availability.
  5. In addition, the landlord stated that the leak was emanating from the property above and it was having trouble gaining access to this property. Whilst this may at times be unavoidable due to a neighbour being unavailable, the landlord is expected to keep in communication with the resident to inform him of the progress in gaining access to the neighbour’s property. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord communicated with the resident about the delay, meaning that the resident had to continue chasing information from the landlord and having increased involvement in the repairs process.
  6. It is expected that landlords communicate effectively through delayed repairs processes to set the resident’s expectations of the next steps. Overall, the landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident and often left the resident with no information. It did not set realistic expectations in regard to the removal of the asbestos and the timeframes included in this removal.
  7. In this case, the landlord provided this Service with its repair logs; however, the repair logs did not include dates of when the leak was reported or repaired. Therefore, it remains unclear to this Service when the leak was first reported, the exact dates of any appointments attended, when these appointments were attended and the full reasons for delays. This has impacted our investigation as it has been difficult to establish if the landlord handled the repairs appropriately . this poor record keeping is a failing in the landlord’s service. Ultimately, whilst it appears the resident first reported the repair in January 2022 and the landlord attended the property to make the electrical work safe, the full repair was not completed until July 2022 which is unreasonable in the circumstances as set out above. 
  8. The landlord should pay the resident £350 compensation in recognition of its failures discussed above and the impact this had on the resident. This compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (published on our website). The guidance suggests amounts of £100 to £600 for cases where there has been service failure which adversely affected the resident, but there may be no permanent impact. 
  9. The resident also reported that the landlord had missed an appointment on 4 May 2022. The landlord stated it could not verify this due to a lack of evidence of this information being provided. However, in the evidence provided to this Service, the resident was provided with this appointment date in the landlord’s stage one complaint response. Therefore, it was reasonable for the resident to rely upon this information that an appointment had been scheduled and in turn, assume that the landlord missed an appointment. Therefore, this was a failing by the landlord to communicate effectively with the resident and manage his expectations.
  10. The resident declined the landlord’s repair appointments on a weekday due to work commitments. Whilst it is understandable that residents may not always be available for appointments for legitimate reasons, the need to schedule appointments for weekends would inevitably have caused some delays due to the availability of the landlord’s contractors for weekend appointments. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it typically attends appointments between Monday to Friday. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to a weekend appointment in an effort to help the resident but it was not strictly obliged to offer this and the landlord would not be responsible for any delays this caused.
  11. In summary, while there was a period of delays that were beyond the control of the landlord, there was also a significant period in which the resident was able to accommodate the repairs, but the landlord failed to arrange them, without explanation. The landlord also had multiple opportunities to provide updates following the resident’s requests, but failed to do so. In the circumstances, this amounted to maladministration by the landlord, for which compensation is appropriate.

 

 

Determination

  1. 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 a leak through his ceiling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 compensation. The compensation should be paid within four weeks of the date of this decision.