Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202345805)

Background

1. The resident has physical and mental health conditions. She lives with her daughter, and they have a joint tenancy with the landlord. When they returned from holiday, they found their house flooded due to a leak from the bathroom. The water caused damage throughout the property. The landlord agreed to do the repairs but said the resident must pay for them because she had nonreported faulty tap.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs and the associated recharges.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs and the associated recharges.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs and the associated recharges

4. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s repairs within its policy timeframe. It did not follow its policy by considering all the circumstances before deciding whether to recharge the resident. It did not reduce charges for unnecessary work and provided conflicting information about whether the resident was responsible to pay.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint on time. It did not clearly record her escalated complaint and poorly managed her expectations about when it would respond. This was not in line with its policies and procedures, or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

What we have not considered

6. We cannot assess whether a resident’s actions or omissions caused damage and whether they are liable to pay for repairs. The courts and insurance companies are the most effective routes to resolve liability issues. We have therefore not considered whether the resident is liable to pay the recharges. If this matter remains unresolved following the outcome of this case, the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice.

What we have considered

7. We have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s flooded bathroom and whether it acted in line with its policies. The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to respond to flooding in residents’ homes within 24 hours. It aims to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days and non-routine repairs in 60 calendar days.
8. The landlord initially inspected the resident’s property within its policy timeframe. It offered to temporarily rehouse her, but she declined. It identified and prioritised the repairs it needed to do. The urgent repairs included deep cleaning the kitchen and hallway, providing dehumidifiers, and checking the electrics were safe. It said the non-urgent repairs included repairing the kitchen ceiling, plastering, and redecorating all the affected areas.
9. Within 24 hours of inspecting the property, the landlord arranged to deliver a dehumidifier to the resident. However, it failed to let her know when the appointment was, which meant she was not in when they called. This was not in line with its repairs policy which says it tells residents when it is coming beforehand. The resident then spent time and trouble rearranging the appointment with the landlord.
10. The landlord initially attended the resident’s property urgently however it was not proactive in booking in the further repairs within its policy timescales. Over a month later, the resident said her property was unsafe as bits of her kitchen ceiling were coming down. She also said her electrics were still faulty as her downstairs toilet light was constantly on.
11. Repair works can be unavoidably delayed for various reasons. However, where landlords cannot complete repairs within planned timeframes, we expect them to keep residents fully informed throughout. In this case it is unclear from the landlord’s records whether it kept the resident updated. Landlords should keep accurate records so they can manage their residents’ housing needs and provide a good service. Where we find limited or unclear records we cannot assess what happened and it may be reasonable for us to assume events did not take place.
12. The landlord said its contractors reported that the resident refused access so it could not do the repairs. The resident disagreed with this, she said they failed to attend her property twice (on 25 and 31 January 2024). The landlord investigated this further and acknowledged its contractors had not attended. However, it failed to compensate the resident for the inconvenience. This was not in line with its repairs policy which says it will pay £10 per missed appointment and £2 per day until it attends.
13. The resident complained the landlord left her property unsafe. She was also unhappy with the letter it sent her on 4 January 2024. This said she was responsible for paying for the repairs. It said she did not report a dripping tap which she had known about for some time and allowed her sink to become blocked. It provided an invoice of the repairs and warned her if she did not pay, then it could affect her tenancy and credit rating, and it would refer her to a debt collection agency.
14. The landlord’s recharge policy says if residents cause repairs either deliberately, by accident, or by neglect, it may recharge them. It says it will normally carry out repairs before waiting for residents to pay. In this case the landlord did not follow its policy as it asked the resident to pay for the repairs before starting them. The policy also says it will assess all the circumstances when deciding if a resident must pay. This includes the history of the resident’s repairs, their age, vulnerability, disability and income. It says it can use its discretion to disregard charges in certain cases.
15. The landlord failed to fully consider all the circumstances in this case before notifying the resident of the recharges and therefore did not follow its recharge policy. It did not fully inspect the resident’s property to establish the cause of the leak before writing to her. It also failed to consider her personal circumstances. The resident said she had been a good tenant of the landlord for 30 years. She said she has physical and mental health conditions, which had been affected by the issues.
16. The landlord’s internal complaint records show it recognised it should have started repairs before waiting for the resident to pay for them. It attempted to put things right by scheduling the works, which the resident said began in April 2024. However, it did not apologise or offer compensation for its failings its final complaint response. This was not in line with its compensation policy which says it will consider offering compensation in cases where it finds it has caused distress and inconvenience by delaying repairs.
17. On 21 June 2024 the landlord completed the works and inspected them. It said it would need to deduct amounts from the recharges as the repairs had not cost as much as planned. However, its internal communications on 20 August 2025 show it had not deducted these costs from the £2081.94 it said she originally owed. It also did not remove costs for decorating which it agreed to do, but the resident said it had not done.
18. The landlord sent us conflicting information about what it thinks caused the flood in the resident’s property, which leaves the complaint unresolved. It initially said the flood was caused by a blocked sink and faulty tap, which the resident knew about but had not reported. It said there was no evidence of leaks in her bathroom. Contrary to this, within internal communications in August 2025, it said it did not think it should have charged the resident for the repairs as an old pipe had burst and “there was limited proof”.
19. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs following a flooded bathroom and the associated recharges. The landlord did not follow its policy in considering all the circumstances before asking the resident to pay for the repairs. It failed to deduct unnecessary charges and provided conflicting information to us about whether she was responsible for paying. It delayed starting the repairs but did not compensate her this or the poorly managed appointments.
20. We ordered the landlord to review its decision about whether the resident should pay for the repairs based on our findings and the conflicting information. We also ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £400 compensation. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance and reflects for the distress and inconvenience the resident said the issues caused her.

21. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. Its policy at the time of the complaint said it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It said it may extend its deadline for responding by 10 working days at either stage, in agreement with the resident. This complies with the 2022 version of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which applied at the time.
22. The landlord’s policy said it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days. In this case the landlord took too long to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. It received her complaint on 11 January 2024 and acknowledged it 10 working days later. This was not in line with its policy, which the landlord recognised and apologised for.
23. The landlord told the resident it needed more time to respond to her stage 1 complaint but did not follow its policy by agreeing the extension with the resident. Although it responded quicker than it said it would when it replied to her complaint 3 days later.
24. It is unclear when the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She spoke to the landlord on 15 February 2024 and sent an undated letter. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 22 February 2024 and said it would respond within 10 working days. Six days later it said it needed more time and would reply within another 10 working days. However, it issued its stage 2 response on 5 March 2024, within the original timeframe. The landlord did not follow its own policy of allowing 20 working days from the start, which would have better managed the resident’s expectations.
25. We found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. It took too long to acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint and did not agree its extension in line with its policy. It poorly managed her expectations about when it would respond to her escalated complaint. Whilst its failings were minor, collectively they likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. We therefore ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation for this. This amount is in line with the landlord’s policy and our remedies guidance.

Learning

26. The landlord’s records show it aims to learn from its complaints. In this case it recognised it should have started the repairs before waiting for the resident to pay for them. The landlord would benefit from updating its processes to ensure it assesses its decision to recharge residents more thoroughly before responding to their complaint about it. It may also want to consider seeking advice from its insurers in these cases where appropriate.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord’s records were limited and unclear. The landlord should keep thorough records so it can better manage residents’ issues and provide a good service.

Communication

28. The landlord should communicate more effectively when managing repairs to keep residents informed and provide an efficient service.