Central Bedfordshire Council (202524985)

Decision
Case ID	202524985
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Central Bedfordshire Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	27 February 2026

Background

1. The resident has been a tenant at the property since 2019. She lives there with her child, has multiple physical and mental health issues and disabilities, and is supported in this complaint by a relative. For clarity, we refer to both the resident and her relative as ‘the resident’. In June 2023, a flood in the lounge caused damage to the property. In November 2023, the resident reported ongoing damp and water leaks and said a flood had damaged personal belongings. The landlord carried out works to address the issues and provided alternative accommodation for the resident and her child while repairs took place. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s actions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Report about required window repairs.
   2. Report about flooding.
   3. Request for a garage door.
   4. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of window repair.
   2. Service failure with its handling of the reports about flooding.
   3. No maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a garage door.
   4. No maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
4.  We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Window repair

5. The landlord failed to compensate the resident for its delay in completing the repairs to the property’s windows.

Flooding

6. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the flooding was not robust. It stated that it held no records showing it had installed a patio at the property. However, the records the resident has since provided suggest the landlord had at least some involvement in earlier patio works.

The request for a garage door.

7. The landlord appropriately considered the resident’s request for a garage door.

The complaint

8. The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint but explained that this was because her complaint was complex. It appropriately sought extensions and replied in full to all her points.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £385 made up as follows: a            £75 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its delayed repair of a window. b            £200 for the frustration caused by its response to the resident’s complaint about the flood. c            £110 (if not already paid), being the sum already offered in the resident’s complaints process. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 27 March 2026
2	Specific action order The landlord must obtain the new evidence from the resident (unless she would like us to share it on her behalf) about the patio works at the property. It should re-evaluate its position in the light of that new evidence and write to the resident with its findings, explaining any actions it will take following its review. If the resident remains dissatisfied after receiving the landlord’s response, she can bring the matter to the Ombudsman.	No later than 27 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 February 2025 (although some documents refer to the complaint being made on 4 March 2025)	The resident’s complaint formed part of her response to an earlier complaint. She raised several issues, including issues she later took to the Ombudsman, which were: the delay in addressing the flood in the lounge damage to furniture and other items as a result of the flood an occupational therapist’s (OT) refusal to extend the side garage door to allow the resident to put her car in the garage outstanding repairs, including to a bedroom window
13 February 2025 to 7 April 2025	The landlord said it provided an interim acknowledgement and requested evidence from the resident and asked for clarification. (We have not seen copies of all this correspondence but have seen evidence of the landlord’s request for clarification on 20 March 2025).
7 April 2025	The landlord provided an acknowledgement, setting out its understanding of the complaint.
22 April 2025	The landlord requested an extension to respond to the complaint.
6 May 2025	The landlord requested a second extension to respond to the complaint.
16 May 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. On each issue, the landlord set out what should have happened, its view of what did happen and why it did not “uphold” the resident’s complaints. These included: that the landlord delayed repairing flood damage which resulted in damaged possessions and the costly running of a dehumidifier, as it did not install the patio that caused the flood an OT’s refusal to agree an extension to the garage door, as the OT did not think the extension could be justified clinically However, it apologised for: “mis-prioritise[ing]” an earlier appointment to respond to the flood, for which it offered compensation of £50 replacing carpet that it did not consider it was liable to replace (as it did not consider it was responsible for the flood) As a “gesture of goodwill” it said it would pay the resident £60 for the cost of running a dehumidifier for 30 days. It asked for evidence that any damage caused to items was caused when alleged and by the actions of its contractors. It said it did not repair a gap under a bedroom window because the resident had not reported it – it said it had now arranged for a repair in late May 2025.
20 May 2025	The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. (We have not seen the request but the landlord gave this date in its acknowledgment).
22 May 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate. It summarised her complaint points and asked her to comment if it had misunderstood them. The complaint points included: the landlord had installed the patio so it was liable for the flood she disagreed with the landlord’s decision to refuse to widen her garage door she had reported the required repair to a bedroom window at a meeting on 1 October 2024 There were also other complaint points which the resident did not bring to us and so are not part of this investigation. The landlord recorded that the remedy the resident sought was for it to pay the cost of portable wi-fi at the alternative accommodation while the works had taken place.
19 June 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response It said: it apologised for the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced it had no records of constructing the patio or authorising any third party to complete the works and anyway said it had acted appropriately when responding to reports of a flood with regards to the request to extend the side garage door, an OT had said there was “no clinical justification” for the installation of external composite double doors, so the landlord had no obligation to provide them it agreed that the resident had raised a request for a repair to a bedroom window on 1 October 2024, which had not been actioned, and it apologised it had no obligation to pay for the cost of the portable wi-fi
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman saying that she wanted widespread policy changes from the landlord and compensation for the distress and inconvenience it had caused by: its handling of the window repair its contractors failure to obtain permission to use her facilities while carrying out works at the property its delays in addressing issues associated with a flood in the lounge, including damage to her possessions and the quality of its contractor’s work the landlord’s refusal to pay for the supply of Wi-Fi used during her stay in alternative accommodation

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.

Complaint	The window repair
Finding	Service failure

9. At stage 2 the landlord correctly apologised for failing to act on a repair to fill a gap below a bedroom window. The resident had raised the repair on 1 October 2024. It acknowledged that it had failed to recognise she had raised this repair in its stage 1 response. It is appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its failure and apologised.
10. However, the landlord’s repairs policy says that it should complete routine repairs within 20 working days and the resident had to wait between 1 October 2024 and 28 May 2025 (165 working days) for the repair. This is significantly outside its policy timeframe. To acknowledge the time and inconvenience caused by that failure we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £75 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for when such service failures cause delays in getting matters resolved.

Complaint	Handling of reports about the flooding
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

11. The resident said the flooding, and the landlord’s failure to deal with it promptly had affected her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused her.
12. In the complaint the resident brought to us, she said contractors used her facilities without permission while carrying out works in response to the flood. She also raised concerns about the quality of their work. However, she did not raise these issues in the landlord’s internal complaints process. While we recognise these issues may have occurred and caused her distress, we can only investigate matters that have completed the landlord’s complaints process. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised the above complaints with the landlord. Therefore, we have no power to investigate these issues.
13. The resident also raised other issues about contractors, but she did not include them in the complaint she brought to us either. This investigation considers only the matters included in her formal complaint of February 2025 and the landlord’s final response of June 2025.

What we have investigated

14. In its stage 1 response dated 16 May 2025, the landlord said that a flood occurred at the property after heavy rainfall on 20 June 2023. It accepted it should not have raised a non‑emergency repair with an appointment date of 5 July 2023, as the flood had been an emergency. It apologised and said that, once it identified the error, it rearranged the repair for 23 June 2023. It acknowledged this was still a delay of 2 days for an emergency repair it should have attended within 24 hours and offered £50 compensation. This was a reasonable acknowledgment of its shortcomings, and the compensation was in line with our guidance on remedies’ above recommendation (as referenced in the landlord’s compensation policy).
15. The resident said the landlord’s failings left her with a soaked lounge for several months. She accepted that it had provided a dehumidifier for 1 month but said she and her family lived in soaking conditions for 5 months after it was removed.
16. The landlord addressed this point in its stage 1 complaint response. It said that it visited the resident on 20 July 2023 and that it had no record of there being any damp at the property on 20 July 2023 when it removed the dehumidifier, The landlord noted that when the resident posted photographs of the lounge on social media almost 6 months later, she referred to the dehumidifier being removed in July 2023 because “it was dry”. The landlord said this, along with the lack of any further reports between July and November 2023, indicated the lounge had been dry in July 2023 and had become wet again due to further water leaks.
17. There is no evidence that the resident’s social media post, which criticised the landlord, was intended to state that the lounge had dried by July 2023. However, the landlord was correct to point out in its stage 1 response that the resident did not make any reports of ongoing issues between July 2023 and November 2023. The resident, so far as we are aware, did not dispute this claim. The lack of any reports between July and November 2023 supports the landlord’s position that, between these dates, the lounge was either dry or that the landlord cannot be held responsible for any ongoing dampness that it was not made aware of.
18. When the resident reported further damp in the lounge in November 2023, the landlord acted appropriately by commissioning a survey in December 2023 to establish why the problem had returned. The survey identified “water ingress at back door causing penetrating damp where patio has been built too high up”.
19. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had no records showing that it had installed the patio and therefore did not consider itself responsible for the flood. In her escalation request, the resident stated that the landlord had installed the patio and that its replacement of her lounge flooring indicated it had accepted responsibility.
20. The landlord later explained that replacing the flooring was an error and apologised. It said the actions it took to address the flooding would have been the same regardless of who had installed the patio. Its actions included providing a dehumidifier after the first flood, offering £60 to cover its costs, carrying out substantial works to the patio and surface drainage after identifying the cause of the second flood, and moving the resident while these works took place.
21. As the landlord did not consider itself responsible for the flood, and the resident did not provide evidence to show it was responsible, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to make a claim through her contents insurance for damaged items.
22. The resident has since provided us with evidence of a works record dated 24 August 2020. The record states: “Remove raised patio and concrete under bedroom window. Make good as necessary… Take up defective concrete to courtyard and renew.” She also provided an email from the landlord dated October 2020 referring to courtyard works.
23. It does not appear that the resident provided this evidence to the landlord, and we cannot assess its relevance without the landlord’s review. However, on the face of it, the evidence suggests the landlord carried out some form of patio works.
24. In the landlord’s complaint response to the resident it set out that it did not dismiss her claims without reviewing the evidence. It referred to reviewing photographs before and after she began her tenancy to reach its conclusion. However, the resident’s subsequent evidence indicates that its review may not have been as robust as it should have been.
25. The resident provided evidence of damage to a fridge-freezer and other items. For example, she said the internal mechanism of her sofa-bed had been damaged by mould caused by the damp. The landlord said that she should provide evidence to support these claims and it would pay if its contractors were responsible. This response was reasonable and in line with its policy, as its compensation guidance said it could compensate where there was evidence of specific financial loss from its service failure.
26. The resident felt the compensation offered did not reflect the difficulties she experienced. The landlord explained how it calculated its offer and set out its reasoning. In relation to the issues it accepted, the offer of £110 was reasonable, and we have ordered the landlord to make this payment.
27. However, the landlord’s insistence that there was no evidence of its involvement in previous patio works, in light of the information we have reviewed, requires further examination and is likely to have caused the resident some frustration. We have ordered the landlord to make an additional payment to acknowledge this and to re‑evaluate its response to the resident after reviewing the new evidence.

Complaint	The request for a garage door
Finding	No maladministration

What we did not investigate

28. In December 2024, the resident reported that an OT’s decision not to support her request to not install double doors on the side of her garage had negatively affected her mental health. We cannot consider complaints concerning local councils that do not relate to them providing or managing social housing or long leases. The OT’s decision is outside our jurisdiction as it was made by a professional acting on behalf of the local council in a clinical capacity not in relation to its housing function. Although the OT worked for the council, which also is the landlord, they worked for its social services arm and not its housing division. Any decision they made, therefore, is outside our jurisdiction.

What we have investigated

29. It is not clear from the available records when the resident first requested that the landlord install double doors on the side of the garage. She said she was disappointed that cost appeared to have been a major factor in the decision, “rather than [her] needs and wellbeing.”
30. The records show that the OT also advised the resident to approach the landlord directly and ask it to install the doors. The landlord subsequently declined to provide these. At stage 2 of its complaints process, it explained that its decision had been informed by the OT’s advice, which it was entitled to rely on.
31. The landlord stated that it was aware the OT had suggested wooden gates as an alternative, but the resident did not feel these would provide adequate security. The OT said that wooden gates could be secured with a padlock and keys but that there was no clinical justification for installing external double doors. The landlord therefore concluded that it had no obligation to provide this adaptation.
32. This was a reasonable position for the landlord to take. This is because it was in line with its website, which said any adaptations to its properties had to be recommended by an OT’s assessment as necessary and appropriate to the needs of the person, reasonable, and practical. There was no clinical need for composite gates and it offered wooden gates as an alternative. The resident complained that the landlord had considered cost as a factor in its decision. However, public bodies are required to use public funds responsibly and justify expenditure. The landlord took her disability into account and fully considered her request.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

33. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaint process that aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It says it aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It says it will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. At stage 1, if it needs more time, it will write to the resident to explain the reasons and may extend the response time by up to 10 working days. If it requires more than a 10‑working-day extension, it will provide the resident with our contact details. The same procedure applies at stage 2, but with a maximum extension of 20 working days.
34. It is unclear when the stage 1 complaint was formally raised. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 February 2025 with several issues, attaching them to an email about a separate complaint escalation. However, both the landlord and the resident refer to the complaint as having been made on 4 March 2025. The copy of the resident’s “new complaint” form provided to us is not dated.
35. Regardless of the exact date the complaint was raised, the landlord accepted that its 16 May 2025 stage 1 response was delayed. It provided evidence that it sought extensions on 22 April 2025, when it said it needed to extend its response to 7 May 2025, and on 6 May 2025, when it did not give a response timescale. However, when it requested a second extension, it did not provide the resident with our contact details, as required by its policy. This was a shortcoming in its complaint handling. The delay that followed was 7 working days after the extension it requested on 22 April 2025, which is unlikely to have caused the resident significant inconvenience. The landlord explained that it required more time because of the number and complexity of the issues the resident had raised. When it did issue its response, it provided a detailed and reasoned response.
36. At stage 2, the landlord issued its response on 19 June 2025, which was within the 20 working days allowed following its acknowledgement on 22 May 2025.
37. Overall, we do not consider that any complaint handling shortcomings caused the resident significant adverse impact. We have therefore made a finding of no maladministration.

Learning

38. We note from the landlord’s records that, at the time it responded to our enquiries, it did not have a written policy for handling requests for reasonable adjustments, as this was still being drafted. We have seen no evidence that it failed to consider the resident’s reasonable adjustments appropriately in this case. Nonetheless, if it has not already done so, it would be helpful for it to finish developing a comprehensive policy to support consistent practice in future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. The landlord did not provide us with copies of several documents concerning its handling of the complaint. This gap in the information and the evidence provided by the resident, suggests that it may benefit from reviewing its record‑keeping processes. The landlord should consider the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management to support accurate and complete records.

Comunication

40. The communication we reviewed from the landlord was clear and appropriately written, including in its complaint responses.