Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202329028)

Background

1. The resident lives in a block of flats which has a car park with entry and exit gates. He reported that the gates would repeatedly break down, leaving the car park open. This caused him concerns about the security of the car park and the building. The resident has not lived in the property since January 2026 and is in the process of selling it. He is unhappy with the landlord’s actions to find a lasting repair for the gates and its response to his concerns.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the communal car park gates.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the communal car park gates.
   2. Maladministration in the handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs to communal car park gates

4. The landlord did not initially address the ongoing issue with the gates. There were unreasonable delays, record keeping failures and the landlord’s communication was poor. The landlord accepted some errors and did carry out an overhaul of the gates, however it has failed to put things right.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord failed to acknowledge or address that it had failed to provide its stage 1 complaint response on time and failed to register a complaint.

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.

The complaint procedure

The landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint on 3 separate occasions during the period of 2022 to 2024. They have been categorised from Complaint A to C starting from 2022.

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.

6. The landlord does not have a specific timescale for communal repairs. However, during the complaint it did reference a 28-day timescale, which we have taken into consideration when assessing its response to the resident’s reports. We have also assessed whether any of the additional time taken by the landlord to facilitate the repairs was reasonable in the circumstances.

2022

7. The resident first reported concerns that one of the gates was stuck open on 24 July. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded. As such, the resident made a further report on 12 August. The landlord attended on 15 August and concluded it required new parts to complete the job, which would take 7-10 days to arrive. While its attendance on 15 August was reasonably prompt, the landlord’s failure to respond to the initial report was the cause of inconvenience, which could reasonably have been avoided.
8. Between 24 August and 30 September, the resident chased the repair and repeatedly asked for the gates be secured. By now, the 7–10-days had passed but the landlord failed to update the resident, causing him further inconvenience and distress. It is unclear why the landlord failed to progress the repair. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure that any reason for the delay was documented, and that the resident was updated accordingly. In the absence of any evidence explaining the reason for the delay, we cannot conclude that it was unavoidable.
9. In October, the resident reported that the second gate was stuck and that he had chased the repair of the first gate a total of 4 times. On 13 October, the landlord agreed via email to 3 to 5-day response time for securing the gates when it required follow up works. The timeliness in this considering it involved making safe, seemed reasonable. In November, it repaired both gates, however there is no log of this, which demonstrates poor record keeping.

2023

10. On 26 July, the resident reported the theft of his cycle to the landlord, who reviewed the CCTV and confirmed there had been an issue with the gate not shutting. It confirmed it would report the mater to see if there was a fault, however, we have not been provided with any record of this or what happened afterwards. This was unreasonable since security was a big concern for the resident and some assurance on the matter would have helped him.
11. On 15 October, the resident reported that the car park gates were stuck open. The landlord did not reply until 21 October, where it explained it had 28 days to complete the repair. It did not mention securing the gate within 3-5 days, as previously agreed. As a result, the resident asked the landlord if the gates could be made secure a further 6 times. This lack of response was not appropriate considering previous assurances on the making safe of the gate.
12. On 2 November, the landlord did take some proportionate measures towards the safety of the residents. It did so by appointing overnight security and later recorded on 28 November that this had improved matters. This demonstrated that it had taken on board the resident’s concerns and continued the security until the repairs were completed.
13. The landlord did not carry out the repairs until 21 December, which was nearly 2 months after the initial report. It is unclear why the landlord was unable to adhere to its 28-day repairs timescale. We have seen nothing which suggests that there were unavoidable delays. In addition, it is noted that the gates had malfunctioned again the day after the repairs were completed. The landlord did appropriately ensure that they were secured, and immediately ordered further repairs. However, the gates malfunctioned a further 2 times, during the complaints process, clearly demonstrating this was an ongoing problem that needed a permanent fix.

2024

14. Between the months of March and September, the landlord records show 4 further issues with the gates. During October, the landlord did make the proactive decision of obtaining quotes to overhaul the motors of each gate, as a way of addressing the overriding issue. This shows it was now more alert to the idea a more permanent fix was required and it explained this to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response. We understand it completed this work, however, we have not been provided evidence of this.

Putting things right

15. Records show that the gates remained broken and open for weeks at a time. Repeated temporary repairs did not resolve the underlying fault and prolonged the resident’s concerns around safety and security, causing ongoing uncertainty about when the issue would be properly resolved. However, 2 years after the initial complaint the landlord did share proposals with residents to replace the motors within all gates as a long-term solution and it carried out this work in 2024.
16. While the landlord has since completed an effective repair, the evidence does not suggest that the delays that the resident experienced during 2022, 2023 and 2024 were wholly unavoidable. We recognise that some of the delays were outside of the landlord’s control. For example, waiting for third parties to order parts. However, the landlord should have communicated this with the resident and kept him informed of developments. Because this did not happen, the resident repeatedly chased updates over a period of 3 years which caused distress and inconvenience and exacerbated his safety concerns.
17. Given the failings we have identified, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays and communication. When deciding on a fair amount, we have given consideration to our guidance on remedies and our guidance on compensation.
18. The resident has stated that he wants the landlord to improve its repair processes. Having investigated the matter, we note several steps the landlord took to try to improve its service provision. This includes operating a post-inspection protocol. The steps taken by the landlord should help to ensure that similar errors are not repeated in the future.

19. Our Complaint Handing Code (the Code) sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code requires landlords to have a 2 stage complaints process. It should acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords should issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint. It must issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation.

Complaint A

20. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint nor did it send its stage 1 complaint response until 11 days outside of the 10-working day timescale. This led to the resident chasing twice for complaint confirmation, causing avoidable distress and inconvenience. When it did respond, the landlord did not provide an explanation for this, nor did it apologise. This was a missed opportunity. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on time, which was consistent with the code.

Complaint B

21. Under The Code, landlords must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. If it decides not to accept a complaint, it must be able to evidence its reasoning. Each complaint must be considered on its own merits.
22. The landlord’s decision to decline the complaint were unreasonable, and not in accordance with the Code. This is because 12-months had elapsed and the resident’s concerns related to matters which had occurred since his first complaint. The issue had also been reported prior to the complaint, therefore the resident was not requesting a service for the first time.
23. As a result of the decision not to accept the complaint, the subsequent acknowledgement and stage 1 response were late. While the delay in issuing the stage 1 response was relatively minor (11 days), the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay. This was unreasonable. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on time, which was consistent with the Code.

Complaint C

24. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was 2 working days outside the 10-working day timescale which is a minor delay and there is no evidence it caused any detriment. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the escalation.
25. The landlord did not respond to all complaint points raised in its stage 1 response, which the resident had to raise as part of his complaint escalation. The landlord did acknowledge this in its stage 2 complaint response, apologised, addressed the outstanding points and awarded £50 compensation.

Putting things right

26. Given the failings we have identified, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This is in line with our remedies guidance (as referenced above) which suggests awards in this range where there were failings by the landlord which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident but the failings have not left permanent impact.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord’s record keeping could have been improved. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate, accessible records that provide a clear audit trail and support oversight of committed actions. The landlord may wish to review its record keeping practices based on the recommendations made in our spotlight report.

Communication

28. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when the landlord keeps residents informed of the status of their repair. In this case the landlord did not keep the resident updated regularly.