Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202423297)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423297

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited

20 August 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 the resident’s:
    1. Complaints regarding damaged living room flooring following a property flood.
    2. Reports of repairs.

Background

  1. The resident’s assured tenancy began in 2021. The property is a 2 bedroom house where she lives with her children.
  2. The resident’s property was flooded by a stop tap leak in December 2022. She made a claim to the landlord, in May 2023, for various damaged belongings including her living room laminate flooring. The landlord told her that it had attended the flood as a same day emergency and completed its repair. It said that it was not responsible for the cost of her damaged belongings and recommended she contact her insurer.
  3. The resident complained about her damaged laminate flooring in early 2024. The landlord stage 1 response, on 6 February 2024, said that the resident had fitted the flooring without the necessary consent and asked that she seek this if she intended to replace it. It repeated its position regarding responsibility for the cost. In September 2024 it declined her request to escalate her complaint due to the time that had passed since stage 1.
  4. From September 2024 the landlord raised various repairs mostly associated with the aftereffects of two separate leaks in the resident’s kitchen, the most recent of which it had attended in January 2024. She further complained about her damaged laminate flooring in December 2024, as well as its non-attendance of more recent repairs appointments and her associated loss of wages.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 response, on 31 December 2024, repeated its previous findings regarding the resident’s laminate flooring. Regarding her recent repairs, it apologised that there had been “failed appointments”. It offered £10 compensation for each. It offered £2 per day compensation for her outstanding kitchen unit repair, and said it would confirm its final offer once it was completed on 3 January 2025. It said that she had not yet provided the pay slips it had requested but would assess her loss of wages upon receipt.
  6. The resident’s complaint escalation, on 23 January 2025, highlighted a new kitchen leak and her unhappiness that repairs were still outstanding. The following day the landlord approved £94 compensation.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 response, on 24 February 2025, stated that most of the repairs advised at stage 1 were complete, its compensation had been in line with its policy, and its stage 1 position was unchanged. It said that its kitchen flooring contractor, associated with her recent repairs, had been unable to contact her and provided a number for her to contact it. It said that it would further assess the new leak on 26 February 2025, which it did.
  8. The landlord told us that the resident’s kitchen flooring was installed on 28 March 2025. The resident complained, in June 2025, that her skirting and kickboards should have been repaired after the kitchen flooring but that she had heard nothing further.
  9. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the matters above. She said that she wanted the outstanding repairs to be completed and asked to be further compensated, including for her living room laminate flooring.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident’s June 2025 complaint was made after the conclusion of the complaint that was brought to us, and it is unknown whether it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Because of that, it has not been considered in this investigation. Once the resident has received the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses to that complaint, she can then return to the Ombudsman and ask us to consider it.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s damaged laminate flooring complaints

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord’s insurance of the property structure “does not include furnishings and your personal belongings”. Its complaints policy states that complaints may be excluded where they concern matters that occurred over 12 months ago, which is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Its policy says that stage 2 escalation requests should be made within 20 working days of the stage 1 response.
  2. The Code states that, regarding the 12 month exclusion period, landlords “must consider whether to apply discretion to accept complaints made outside this time limit”. The landlord demonstrated this when it accepted the resident’s first complaint, which was made over 12 months after the December 2022 stop tap flood. Its stage 1 response, on 6 February 2024, provided contents insurance advice. It gave a clear explanation of why it did not accept responsibility for the cost of her laminate flooring, which was in line with the evidence seen, and what it had previously advised in May 2023.
  3. The landlord acted in line with its policy when it declined to escalate the resident’s complaint in September 2024, 160 working days after its stage 1 response. It advised that she was instead able to refer her complaint to us, which was in line with the Code.
  4. The landlord further demonstrated its discretion when it included the resident’s laminate flooring concerns as part of her complaint made 24 months after the flood, in December 2024. Its responses repeated its previous position. The evidence shows that it also called her to discuss this, and provided relevant links to ‘home improvement permission’ and insurance information.
  5. Overall, the landlord gave the resident a clear explanation of why it did not accept responsibility for the cost of her laminate flooring, which was in line with the evidence seen and her tenancy agreement. It provided her with relevant advice and signposting. Its handling of the flooring aspects of her complaints was in line with its own policy and the Code, and therefore reasonable.

The landlord’s repairs handling

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay £10 for each missed appointment or failure to complete a repair within its timescales. It says that, where there is a second missed appointment, it will pay an additional £10 and a further £2 per day “until attended”.
  2. The landlord’s complaint responses accepted its service failings, including its ‘failed appointments’. It stated how it would look to improve its future service. Its £94 compensation was in line with the repairs evidence seen and its own compensation policy. However, the resident’s complaint had also included her loss of wages. The landlord’s stage 1 response, on 31 December 2024, had committed to consider this once she had provided her relevant pay slips.
  3. The resident’s emailed complaint escalation stated that her pay slips were attached. The evidence suggests that they were not in fact attached and the landlord has since confirmed this to us. Nonetheless, the evidence clearly shows that the resident had intended to attach them and believed that she had done so. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to highlight that, contrary to her intention, it had not received the pay slips and ask her to resend them.
  4. The landlord had opportunities to do this at any point from when the resident escalated her complaint on 23 January 2025, to it sending her its stage 2 response on 24 February 2025. It failed to take this opportunity, or to refer to the wage loss element of her complaint in its stage 2 response.
  5. Overall, the landlord accepted and apologised for the failings in its repairs handling. It stated its learning and offered compensation in line with its policy. It committed to review the wage loss element of the resident’s complaint on receipt of her pay slips, but failed to follow up on this after she believed that she had sent them. The resident’s complaint was therefore unresolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints regarding damaged living room flooring.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord must pay the resident £75 compensation in relation to its failure to follow up on its commitment to assess her wage loss complaint.
  2. Within 8 weeks the landlord must ask the resident if she wishes to provide her pay slips and, if so, review her wage loss in line with its previous commitment and write to her with an explanation of its decision.
  3. The landlord must provide us with evidence of its compliance with the orders within the timelines above.