From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

West Northamptonshire Council (202331783)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331783

West Northamptonshire 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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s request that it clear or repair the gutter.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat within a block comprised of similar properties. His flat is on the 6th floor of the building and the roof is directly above. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 28 August 2023. He said he was unable to sleep when it rained due to a constant dripping noise from the gutter onto his bedroom window which had been ongoing for over a year. A contractor visited 3 months prior and said that they needed to put up scaffolding, but this did not happen. Another contractor visited the previous week and said the same thing. A private contractor said that clearing the gutter would likely resolve the problem.
  3. In its stage 1 response to the complaint on 5 September 2023, the landlord apologised for the delay and failed attempts to resolve his reports. It raised a job on a 7-day order for its contractors to complete. On 19 September 2023, the resident called to ask what was happening with his complaint and the work. Its internal records indicate that operatives attended and were waiting for it to give approval for scaffolding. He asked it to escalate the complaint on 21 September 2023 as it had not communicated with him.
  4. On 13 October 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and provided its final complaint response. It provided a copy of its stage 1 complaint response as it appeared that he did not receive this. It said that its contractors provided photographic evidence to show that they completed work to the guttering on 11 September 2023. It said it would not escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process as it had suitably considered the issue and provided a conclusion. It confirmed it would keep the complaint open for 7 working days if he did not feel it had fully responded.
  5. Between 15 October and 17 November 2023:
    1. The resident disputed that the work had taken place and provided video evidence of moss and debris in the gutter. He also provided video evidence documenting the level of noise he experienced.
    2. The landlord apologised on 16 October and said it would arrange a new job to clear the gutters. He asked it to escalate his complaint on 19 October.
    3. Contractors attended on 31 October and reported that they had cleared the accessible gutters but said the landlord had not yet approved work to clear the high-level (7 storey) gutters.
    4. He asked the landlord to provide an update on 17 November.
  6. The resident referred his complaint to us in December 2023 as he remained dissatisfied that the landlord had not resolved the problem. He was also unhappy that it blocked him from its complaints process and ignored his contact.
  7. In its communication with us in October 2024, the landlord said that the issue remained unresolved, and it intended to complete cladding work to the building which would also involve renewing the existing rainwater goods. It expected this programme to end in March 2025. The resident has since explained, in June 2025, that while it completed work to other blocks in the area, it had not completed work to his building as it was waiting for approval from the Building Safety Regulator for working at heights.

Assessment and findings

  1. The lease and the landlord’s leaseholder handbook confirm that the landlord is responsible for keeping the main structure and outside of the property in good condition. This includes the roof, gutters and rainwater goods.
  2. The landlord does not have a repair policy in place for leaseholder repairs. Its website states it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. It also says that urgent repairs are works needed to quickly prevent immediate damage to the property, and routine repairs include non-urgent works which cannot wait until a program of planned maintenance. The website does not specify any timescales for urgent or routine repairs or include information about its planned maintenance programmes of work.
  3. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that it has a 2 stage formal complaints process. At stage 1, it aims to respond within 10 working days. If all or part of the complaint is not resolved at stage 1, it will be progressed to stage 2 at the resident’s request unless an exclusion ground applies. It should respond within 20 working days.
  4. The policy further states that it would not consider complaints where it had already suitably considered an issue through its complaints process and concluded the matter, or where it could take no further action following its stage 1 complaint response. It also had an optional stage 3 complaint panel review.

The resident’s request that it clear or repair the gutter

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on landlords to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of properties. Landlords should complete repairs “within a reasonable timescale” to avoid impacting the resident’s enjoyment and use of their property. The landlord did not provide a repairs policy detailing its categorisation of repairs and the associated time limits for dealing with repairs. In line with best practice, landlords should generally complete “routine” repairs within 1 calendar month, and more complex repairs, involving specialist materials or scaffolding within 3 months.
  2. We have found failing in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports as it did not provide a resolution. In November 2022, he told the landlord that he reported an issue with the gutter over a year prior, but it did not complete work. We have limited records of his reports prior to November 2022, but as of June 2025, 31 months later, it has not resolved his concerns.
  3. In view of the resident’s reports, we would have expected the landlord to inspect the gutter to determine the cause of the problem and take steps to resolve this in line with its repair and maintenance obligations. We have not seen evidence to show that the resident reported that the water escape was impacting the fabric of the building or internal parts of the property. However, it would be the landlord’s responsibility to ensure this was not the case and take steps to prevent potential damage over time. While some water escape from gutters is expected during periods of exceptionally heavy rain, the resident reported that the water escaped onto his window each time it rained which had an impact on his sleep.
  4. Following the resident’s report in November 2022, there is no evidence to support that the landlord took action to progress any repairs. He needed to chase this on 10 January 2023 and reported water dripping onto his bedroom window sill when it rained. While it raised a work order on the day, the landlord did not attend until 12 May 2023, 4 months later. This was not within a reasonable timescale, and we have not seen any valid reason for the delay.
  5. The landlord was aware from 12 May 2023 that operatives needed scaffolding to safely access the gutter due to its height, but did not take steps to progress this. The resident chased the follow-on work on 19 May 2023 and 5 June 2023 due to a lack of update. While it raised work to clear the gutters on 19 June 2023, the resident raised specific concern that it had not erected scaffolding on 10 August 2023, and it could not complete work scheduled for 18 August 2023 without this. Operatives already reported on 18 June 2023 that they needed scaffolding as they did not have a ladder long enough to reach the 7th storey. The landlord was evidently aware of the need for scaffolding, or an alternative means to access the gutter, but failed to act on its contractors’ requirements or the resident’s concerns.
  6. While the landlord apologised on 5 September 2023 and said it would arrange for the gutter to be cleared within 7 days, there is no evidence to show that it made contractors aware of the need to work at height and for scaffolding or other means to access the gutter. While operatives attended on 11 September 2023, its records from 20 September 2023 show that it was aware that the job needed scaffolding and that it would raise the work when its management approved this. Its records show that contractors made the landlord aware of further works needed to clean all high-level gutters using a MEWP (Mobile Elevation Work Platform) on 11 October 2023.
  7. In its further response on 13 October 2023, the landlord said that its contractors attended on 11 September 2023 and provided photographic evidence to show they completed the work. It failed to engage with its own records when responding to the resident, causing him additional time and trouble in pursuing a resolution. Its response resulted in a further, unnecessary, visit to the building on 31 August 2023. Following this, operatives informed the landlord of the need to approve further work again on 1 November 2023.
  8. It is of concern that the landlord took no action at this stage to mitigate the impact on the resident. It has not provided evidence to show that it inspected the gutter to determine whether the water escape was caused by a repair fault for which it was responsible, or that it only needed to clear the debris to resolve the issue. If it did not intend to complete the work, we would have expected to see clear evidence to show that it explained its position. However, we have not seen any evidence of the landlord’s actions or communication with the resident after 17 November 2023 when he chased an update.
  9. In its communication with us in October 2024, 11 months later, the landlord said it had not resolved the problem as it intended to replace the gutter and rainwater goods as part of a cladding removal programme by March 2025. It can be reasonable and more cost effective for a landlord to wait and complete all necessary works requiring scaffolding at the same time if this is within a relatively short timescale. However, where it does not expect to complete work for some time, we would expect it to take all reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of any repair problems in line with its obligations.
  10. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not take steps to maintain the gutter in line with its obligations and resolve or mitigate the problem given that it did not expect to complete the work until March 2025. It has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that it attempted any action to address the resident’s reports, or that it adequately explained its position to him.
  11. In view of the above, we have found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for it to clean or repair the gutter. Its failure to engage with the need for scaffolding or other suitable means to work at heights caused unreasonable delays and unnecessary appointments during the time of the resident’s complaint. While work to clear the gutter was not “urgent”, it did not suitably recognise the impact the resident said the situation had on his ability to sleep and did not take steps to resolve the problem which it was responsible for. It did not provide clear timescales to the resident as to when it would address his concerns and did not communicate effectively, meaning that he spent significant time and trouble pursuing a resolution.
  12. We note that the resident has said he is aware of the cladding programme but that the landlord has not completed this to his block as of June 2025. We have made several orders below for the landlord to confirm its actions moving forward and to pay compensation to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused by its failings.
  13. Landlords should have policies and procedures setting out how it manages repairs. These can provide clarity both internally and externally, ensure transparency and accountability, and allow it to monitor the effectiveness of its repairs service. The landlord’s complaints policy specifically states that it considers complaints about failure to meet its policy timescales. However, it has confirmed that it does not have a policy and has not provided information about its repair timescales publicly, or to us for the purpose of the investigation.
  14. We previously made an order as part of a separate case in March 2024 for the landlord to publish its repairs policy. At the time, it was unable to do so as the policy was under review. It is of concern that it is yet to publish or provide relevant information regarding its repairs processes or timescales. We have included an order below in relation to the landlord’s repair policy and timescales for handling of repairs.

The resident’s complaint

  1. The resident asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint on 28 August 2023. It responded at stage 1 on 5 September 2023, which was within a reasonable timeframe. However, while it apologised, it did not adequately demonstrate it investigated his concerns or explain why it did not complete the repair sooner. It also failed to recognise the impact on the resident, including his time and trouble pursuing the repair or the impact he said the matter had on his ability to sleep due to its delay.
  2. The resident pursued an update regarding the repair work and complaint job on 19 September 2023. He then asked it to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 21 September 2023 as it had not contacted him or completed the work. The landlord responded on 13 October 2023, which was within a reasonable timescale. However, it did not handle the complaint appropriately or fairly.
  3. Our Complaint Handling Code (2022) set out that a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so, and any exclusions must be fair and reasonable. Examples of reasonable exclusions can include matters that it has already considered under the complaints policy.
  4. In its response on 13 October 2023, the landlord said it would not escalate the complaint to stage 2 as it had already considered and concluded the matter through its complaints process. Its decision to apply this exclusion was incorrect and unreasonable. While it provided a stage 1 response, it had not previously considered the complaint at all stages under its complaints policy.
  5. It has not provided evidence to show that it attempted to understand the resident’s reasons for pursuing the complaint. It appears to have assumed that the resident did not receive its stage 1 complaint response without discussing this, or his reasons for dissatisfaction with him. It relied on contractors saying that they completed the work without ensuring that this had remedied the situation for him. As set out above, it also failed to engage with its own records when responding to the complaint as it had knowledge that the matter was unresolved at the time of its response.
  6. On 19 October 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 3. Its internal records at the time show that the staff member explained that, as it did not address the complaint at stage 2, it may need to issue a stage 2 rather than a stage 3 response. Despite this interaction, the landlord’s internal communication references the need to “prevent” an escalation to stage 2 on 23 October 2023. It should have escalated the complaint or explained why it would not do so within a reasonable timeframe.
  7. The landlord has not provided evidence to show that it sought to provide a further complaint response or explain its position regarding the complaint, leading him to chase a response again on 17 November 2023. Although the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code does not require landlords to offer a third stage in its complaints process, a review by the panel could have been an opportunity for it to review and address the resident’s concerns. It is of concern that the landlord prevented full access to the complaints process and did not use the opportunity to put right any failings or learn from the complaint.
  8. There has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. While it issued responses within its policy timescales, it did not adequately investigate its handling of the resident’s reports. Its responses failed to engage with the substantive issue or its own records and it unfairly excluded the complaint from its complaints process. Its failings led to the resident spending additional time and trouble pursuing a resolution and were likely to have caused frustration and inconvenience.

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 request that it clear or repair the gutter.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings.
    2. Pay the resident £450 compensation comprised of: 
      1. £350 in recognition of the time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience caused to him due to the failings in its handling of the gutter work.
      2. £100 in recognition of the time and trouble caused by its poor complaint handling.
    3. Write to the resident to explain the actions it has taken to progress the cladding removal and rainwater good replacement works, and the timescales in which it aims to complete the work. If it does not intend to complete this within the next 3 months, it should confirm what action it will take to clear the gutter and address his concerns in the meantime.
  2. Within 8 weeks, the landlord is to complete a management review of this case to establish points of learning. It should consider its handling of the repair, communication with the resident and its handling of the complaint to determine any changes it can make to improve its service moving forward.
  3. Within 8 weeks, the landlord is to consider how it intends to maintain gutters to the high-level buildings on the estate as part of a cyclical maintenance programme once it completes the replacement works.
  4. Within 8 weeks, the landlord is to confirm the current status of its repairs policy, when it intends to publish this, and its current timescales for different categories of repair.
  5. The landlord is to provide this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales.