City of Lincoln Council (202514255)

Background

1. The resident is a tenant in a house with adaptations. Her husband has mobility support needs, and her daughter has a medical condition that affects her mobility. The resident reported several repairs in late 2024. The landlord inspected the property in September 2024 and April 2025 and identified repairs. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs during that period. She raised a further complaint in July 2025 about the landlord’s approach to asbestos testing.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs, in particular the staircase, doorways, and plastering.
   2. Lead pipe replacement works.
   3. Adaptations.
   4. Asbestos testing.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of adaptations.
6. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for errors in its handling of asbestos testing.
7. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of lead pipe replacement works.
   2. Complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Repairs

8. There were unreasonable delays in completing repairs, which the landlord accepted. It failed to offer redress in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays.

Lead pipe replacement

9. The landlord followed the recommendations of the water company and replaced the lead water main. The replacement was completed within a reasonable timescale. The landlord sought to replace joins containing lead within the property, but was unable to progress with the repair. It was also unable to test the paintwork for lead. This impacted on its ability to respond.

Adaptations

10. The landlord engaged well with the resident’s occupational therapist. It appropriately sought further advice when it found the initial proposed adaptations were not viable. There was an unreasonable delay between it agreeing the new proposal progressing with the adaptations. There was also poor communication with the resident around this time.

Asbestos testing

11. The landlord accepted its operative did not follow the correct safety procedures when doing asbestos testing. When the resident raised concerns it responded the same day to confirm the tests found no asbestos. Its stage 1 response was dismissive of her concerns. This was put right by its stage 2 response which offered appropriate compensation and showed it had learnt from the outcomes of its handling of the matter.

Complaint handling

12. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and procedures.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Plastering and doorway repairs

13. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord accepted it had agreed to complete the doorway works when it raised the plastering repair. It raised the plastering repair during its September 2024 inspection. The plastering was not completed until April 2025, 7 months later, which inconvenienced the resident. She was further inconvenienced by having to complain before the landlord progressed the doorway works. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised for not progressing the repairs. Given the inconvenience caused by the delays, it would have been reasonable to offer compensation.
14. Repair records show the landlord did not raise a repair for the doors until 20 May 2025, a month after its complaint response. The resident had to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 25 May 2025 for the landlord to progress the matter.
15. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord accepted it had not progressed the repairs. It said it would prioritise the work due to delays but also stated it was non-urgent and could take up to 9 weeks. The landlord missed an opportunity to offer compensation for its acknowledged errors. It also used the stage 2 response to explain its position on the resident’s transfer request related to the repair issues. We acknowledge the resident was disappointed with this decision, but the landlord communicated its position clearly and its position was reasonable.
16. The requirement to test the floor tiles for asbestos before completing the door repair added complexity. The landlord delayed raising the asbestos testing, and it did not take place until July 2025.
17. We have investigated the landlord’s handling of repairs addressed in its stage 2 complaint response, up to August 2025. The legal disrepair claim included other repairs as well as the door repairs, so we consider it separate from the complaints process, which concluded in June 2025. We have no power to investigate issues the landlord has not had an opportunity to resolve first. The resident may complain about the landlord’s handling of repairs after she initiated the disrepair claim in August 2025. We may then investigate if she remains dissatisfied after completing the landlord’s complaints process. However, we cannot investigate any matters which have been to court or where a court hearing is pending.
18. The landlord attempted to progress the door and doorway repairs in August 2025, nearly a year after being notified. The resident experienced inconvenience due to the delay. In August 2025, she instructed a solicitor and began a disrepair claim. Evidence shows the resident declined repair visits in August and September 2025 because of the ongoing claim. We are not commenting on her reasons for refusing visits, but this may have affected the landlord’s ability to complete the repairs.

Staircase repairs

19. The landlord was on notice about the staircase repair from September 2024 but did not complete it until around April 2025. The exact completion date is missing from the repair logs, which indicates poor record keeping. The 7-month delay in starting the repair caused inconvenience to the resident. She expressed concern about the stability of the banister. The delay may have increased the distress she experienced. Given the repair involved a potential hazard, the landlord should have progressed it with greater urgency.
20. The initial staircase repair was not done to an appropriate standard, as confirmed by the landlord during its inspection on 20 May 2025. This caused inconvenience to the resident, who had to raise the issue as a stage 2 complaint. The landlord completed follow-up repairs on 22 May 2025, promptly after identifying the initial work was below the expected standard.
21. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response lacked detail about the issues with the stairs or when it planned to paint them. The landlord missed an opportunity to show learning and put things right for the resident.
22. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs. Our remedies guidance sets out our approach to compensation. It says compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put right failings by the landlord which adversely affected the resident, when there was no permanent impact, and it has made no attempt to put things right. Considering this, we order the landlord to pay the resident £350 in compensation to put right the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs.

23. The landlord was aware of the resident’s concerns about lead in the property when she escalated her original complaint to stage 2 on 25 May 2025. As part of her complaint, she raised concerns about the impact on her and her family’s health from possible lead exposure. It would be fairer and more effective for the resident to pursue a personal injury claim for any harm caused. The courts are best placed to resolve this type of dispute as they can rely on independent medical advice to determine the cause and duration of any injury. We have not investigated this further. We can only decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
24. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord outlined its position on the lead pipe. It explained that water company testing confirmed the lead level in the water was within an acceptable tolerance. It also confirmed it had agreed to replace the lead water pipe due to the resident’s health concerns. This shows the landlord sought to reassure the resident that the lead level was safe while taking her concerns seriously and agreeing to go beyond its obligations to replace the pipe.
25. The landlord replaced the lead water main in August 2025. Given the complexity of the work, this was a reasonable timeframe for completion. The landlord also agreed to test the fittings within the property for lead and to replace any fitting that contained lead. This further demonstrates it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
26. Records show the landlord attempted to test some paintwork for lead in August 2025 after the resident raised further concerns. Notes from the visit indicate the resident declined access and advised she was pursuing a disrepair claim. We are not commenting on her reasons for refusing testing, but this affected the landlord’s ability to address the issue. The available information also indicates the resident refused access for testing lead in the pipe fittings around the same time.
27. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about lead at the property. There was no maladministration in its handling of the matter.

28. The landlord was aware of the resident’s request for bathroom adaptations, due to her daughter’s needs, from 4 June 2025. The request was submitted by the daughter’s occupational therapist (OT). In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it would inspect the bathroom to assess whether the requested adaptations were viable.
29. The resident later requested a housing transfer based on her household’s needs and the required adaptations. We have not investigated the landlord’s handling of this request as it was made after the resident exhausted the complaints procedure. We have no power to investigate issues the landlord has not had an opportunity to resolve first. However, we have extended the scope of this investigation beyond the stage 2 complaint response to consider the commitments the landlord made in that response. This includes its agreement to inspect the bathroom to assess whether the recommended adaptations were viable.
30. The landlord sought input from the OT because installing a bath and separate shower was not viable within the available bathroom space. In August 2025, the landlord updated the resident and confirmed it had referred the adaptations request to its panel to consider whether adaptations or a move to an alternative property would be more appropriate. The landlord kept the resident informed about its progress. Given the complexity and need for further OT input, there was not an unreasonable delay.
31. The landlord formally discussed the proposed adaptations at its panel in October 2025 and told us that it was sourcing a suitable walk-in bath for the property. The adaptations were a complex issue. However, the landlord agreed with the OT in August 2025 that a walk-in bath would be suitable. This was not formally agreed or progressed until October 2025 at the earliest, which was an unreasonable delay that inconvenienced the resident.
32. There is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident on its progress with the adaptations during this period. This caused further inconvenience. The landlord must now write to the resident setting out its planned adaptations and the expected completion date.
33. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of adaptations. Our remedies guidance says up to £100 may be appropriate to put right errors where there was a minor failure by the landlord, which may have been of short duration and did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. This is when there were errors in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right. We order the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation for the inconvenienced caused by errors in its handling of adaptations.

34. As with the lead pipe issue, the resident’s concerns about asbestos and impact on her health are better suited to a court. This is because a court will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further.
35. The landlord accepted that the operative who carried out the asbestos testing did not follow the correct safety procedures. The resident complained on 25 July 2025 after the visit, stating she was distressed. The landlord responded the same day and confirmed the asbestos test result was negative, which helped reassure the resident about the risk of asbestos exposure.
36. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was dismissive of the resident’s concerns. While it was appropriate to state that the operative had experience in asbestos testing, the response did not acknowledge the resident’s concern about correct procedures not being followed.
37. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response accepted that correct procedures should have been followed, even if the operative was confident asbestos was not present. It demonstrated learning by confirming it would provide staff training and speak directly with the operative involved. This corrected the shortcomings of its stage 1 response.
38. Our remedies guidance says that up to £100 is appropriate to put right errors that were of a short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. Such a situation applies in this case. We have decided the £50 in compensation the landlord offered was appropriate to put right the distress and inconvenience its errors caused.

39. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. It provided formal responses at both stages of the process within the timescales set out within its policy and our Complaint Handling Code, which sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint processes.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

40. We identified errors in the landlord’s record keeping where repair visit outcomes were not recorded (staircase repair). Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
    1. let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits
    2. gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory. 
41. In this case, the records do not show if the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of repairs. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord’s repairs and maintenance team followed our spotlight report recommendations.
42. We identified errors with the landlord’s communication about the progress with the adaptations. Better communication may have helped reassure the resident it was taking the matter seriously and seeking to progress with the adaptations.