Northumberland County Council (202501576)

Background

1. The resident told the landlord that he received electrical shocks in his bathroom. He was concerned about the impact on his family, including his pregnant wife.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about electrical safety.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about electrical safety.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about electrical safety

4. There was a delay logging the request for a repair which impacted the landlord’s response time. It apologised and offered compensation in line with our compensation guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

5. The landlord responded late at both complaint stages, although it did extend its response timescale at stage 1.

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 has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have 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. The resident was concerned that the landlord’s handling of the situation put his and his family’s health at risk. There is no independent evidence of verified injury or adverse health impact arising from the issues raised. If there were any such evidence, the courts would be better placed to consider this type of dispute. We have therefore not investigated this matter further.
7. Within the resident’s submission, he referred to previous issues in the property, including a smoking plug socket around July 2024. We have seen no evidence that he raised a complaint to the landlord about this at the time. This report focuses on the events leading up to his initial complaint in January 2025 and its related complaint responses of January and March 2025.

What we have considered

8. The landlord was responsible for maintaining electrical safety within the property. Its repairs policy states that the out‑of‑hours emergency service intends to make the property safe only, with any follow‑on works arranged during normal working hours.
9. The resident first reported electrical shocks on 25 December 2024, during an out‑of‑hours period. The landlord relied on the professional judgement of its on‑call electrician, who provided telephone advice and did not consider immediate attendance necessary. While it was entitled to rely on a qualified contractor, it was a failure that it did not log a formal repair at that stage and that there were limited records of the advice given.
10. The landlord contacted the electrician as part of its investigation.The electrician said he ran through some safety checks and told him to call the landlord on the next working day if he was still having problems. The resident disputed this account and raised concerns about how the electrician assessed the issue. We have seen no independent evidence to confirm either version of events.
11. In the absence of a logged repair, responsibility for progressing the issue largely remained with the resident, which was not appropriate given the nature of the report. He said he waited at home on 27 December 2024 before going on holiday later that day and confirmed he did not follow up with the landlord when he received no contact. He was then away until the evening of 2 January 2025. This may have limited the landlord’s ability to access the property if it had raised a repair.
12. Following further contact from the resident on 2 January 2025, the landlord acted appropriately by raising a priority repair. The resident also said he contacted it on 3 January 2025. An electrician attended on 3 January 2025 and repaired a loose main earth connection. It did this within the 24-hour timeframe set out in its policy for emergency repairs.
13. The landlord arranged a full electrical inspection on 8 January 2025. This was a reasonable and proportionate step that provided assurance the electrical system was compliant with safety standards. This was also in line with the 30-day repair period set out within its repairs policy for non-emergency repairs where there was not an immediate risk.
14. The resident told us that he used a bucket in place of the toilet until the landlord had completed a full electrical inspection. However, we have seen no evidence that it was aware of this or that the toilet facilities were unsafe. Records show it had taken action to make the electrical system safe in the interim.
15. In response to concerns about staff conduct, the landlord reviewed the call where the resident alleged a call handler laughed at him. The complaint response sets out that the contact centre manager later telephoned him to apologise. Having listened to the call in question, we find this was an appropriate remedy and showed it took the matter seriously.
16. To acknowledge the service failures, including the delay raising a repair, the landlord offered the resident 1 week’s rent credit. Based on the rental evidence provided, this was £89.37. This was consistent with our compensation guidance for distress and inconvenience when there was a minor delay.

17. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days. This is extendable by 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
18. The landlord’s corporate feedback policy sets out how it manages complaints. It has not submitted a copy of its policy that was applicable at the time of this complaint. The document provided is from November 2025.
19. This policy aligns with the Code in relation to the definition of a complaint and response timescales. However, it does not specify timescales for granting extensions. We have raised a learning point regarding this.
20. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 12 working days after acknowledging the complaint, which was 2 working days outside of the expectations of the Code. However, records show it contacted the resident to advise of the delay, which mitigated this failing.
21. The landlord was also late in acknowledging the complaint at stage 2 and issued its stage 2 response 27 working days after the resident’s initial escalation request. While he disputes receiving some information from the landlord, there is insufficient evidence to determine this.
22. Overall, although there were delays in the complaints handling, these did not materially affect the outcome of the complaint and amounted to a minor service failure. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident, in accordance with our compensation guidance. This states that an apology is an appropriate remedy where short‑term complaint handling failures have occurred and resulted in minimal inconvenience.

Learning

General learning

23. The landlord ought to ensure its complaints policy fully aligns with the Code in terms of extension timescales.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. Good record keeping ensures that repairs are managed effectively without the need for repeat reports or unreasonable delays. The landlord may wish to review our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Communication

25. The lack of detailed records from 25 December 2024 impacted our ability to assess the communication between the electrician and the resident. Effective communication is vital. Poor communication leaves residents uninformed, leading to frustration and repeated contact.