Nottingham City Council (202404408)

Background

1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 3-bedroom house. She lives with her daughter who is autistic. She reported water underneath her floor to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of reports of water under the property.
   2. Complaints handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of water under the property.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord delayed inspections and communicated poorly with the resident. It has left her with no permanent solution to the water under the property. She has been left responsible for manually activating a pump daily to prevent potential disrepair.
6. The landlord apologised for lack of communication and delays but did not uphold the complaint or offer any compensation. It did not fully address the resident’s concerns in its responses.

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.

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.

7. The resident reported water under her property in early October 2023. The landlord arranged for pumping on 6 October 2023. It offered an appointment for 11 October 2023, but the resident was unavailable. It rearranged the appointment for 19 October 2023 at the resident’s convenience. This implies that neither party considered the matter to be urgent at this point.
8. At the 19 October 2023 appointment, the contractor reported back to the landlord that clean water was entering through the joining wall. It contacted Severn Trent Water, who treated it as an emergency and attended the same day. The contractor pumped the water out. This was a suitable response to allow further investigation.
9. The resident asked the landlord for a full property survey and an explanation of how the water issue would be resolved. Although the landlord had pumped the water out, it quickly returned. The landlord sought advice from the flood risk management team. They said there was little that can be done about groundwater. They advised to manage it through monitoring and pumping. It was appropriate that the landlord sought this advice.
10. By 5 December 2023, when the resident made a stage 1 complaint, the landlord had not provided any updates despite her repeated requests. She felt unsafe, fearing structural damage to the property. It was unreasonable for the landlord to leave her without information. However, the water under the property was not posing an imminent risk of flooding.
11. In its stage 1 response on 15 December 2023, the landlord confirmed that the water was not from a burst pipe. It is surface water which is harder to solve and may take longer than it would normally expect. It planned an investigation to ensure the right actions were taken to solve the problem. It booked an inspection for 21 December 2023. The landlord should have arranged this after the 19 October 2023 visit.
12. At the 21 December 2023 appointment, the stock surveyor confirmed the issue was likely groundwater under the flooring and recommended a sump pump as the best solution. He told the resident this would be a major project, requiring her to temporarily move out and that installation would not be quick. The resident again requested a structural survey. The landlord managed expectations about timescales. It asserted its responsibility for the management of the water by telling the resident what work it needed to carry out.
13. On 16 January 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she had received no communication from the landlord, and the issue had not been solved.
14. The landlord, through internal communications, questioned the use of an independent structural surveyor and instead sent its own building surveyor on 1 February 2024. He found structural issues on the first floor unrelated to the water and raised repairs for these promptly. The landlord confirmed it would install a sump pump and referred to this as a “repair” in its stage 2 response.
15. On 19 April 2024, the landlord installed a sump pump. The resident said she must manually run it for two hours daily and pay for electricity. The landlord is of the view that the resident does not need to manually switch it on. She repeatedly contacted the landlord for updates on the source of the water and a lasting solution but got no response. The landlord had not resolved the issue or investigated the source of the water.
16. The way the landlord has dealt with the situation is not appropriate. It is unclear if the pump is a temporary or permanent solution. The resident does not know what will happen if she does not turn on the pump for 2 hours each day. She feels unable to leave the property without worrying about what could be happening in her home. We can surmise that these are the scenarios if she does not run the pump:
    1. The property floods, potentially causing damage and distress.
    2. There is no flooding, however there are environmental health risks from stagnant water under the property, like smell or pests.
17. In either scenario, the landlord has left the resident responsible for preventing potential disrepair or environmental risks. She has constant thoughts of the water under her property, uncertainty about its source and possible consequences. Due to the resident having to manually turn the pump on daily her right to quiet enjoyment of her home is interfered with. It has caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
18. The source of the water needs to be established and resolved where possible. If it cannot be resolved, the landlord should provide a permanent solution. The resident should be able to live in her home and leave her home without the inconvenience and worry of turning on a pump daily.
19. On 16 June 2024, the landlord reviewed the resident’s compensation claim. It said there were no current plans to remove the pump as the source of water might not be fixable. The running cost was low (about 30p per week) since the pump only activates when needed, so it would not cover this expense. It offered £250 as a goodwill gesture without admission of liability. The resident disputed this, saying the pump does not only activate when needed. She asked if she should contact environmental health. The landlord replied that its compensation decision was final and advised her to seek legal advice. This response was not empathetic to the resident’s situation and did not offer suitable guidance.
20. In February 2025, a subcontractor conducted a CCTV drain survey which identified issues needing attention. The landlord carried out these repairs on an unknown date, but it did not resolve the issue. In November 2025, an engineer did a visual inspection but could not identify the water source. He recommended diagnostic water testing to decide next steps. The inspection noted efflorescence on external brickwork from constant contact with water. It is not clear what triggered these inspections which took place 16 months and over 2 years after the water was first reported. It was appropriate that these inspections took place, but the landlord delayed this unreasonably.
21. The landlord delayed inspections and communicated poorly with the resident. It has left her obliged to manually activate a pump daily for over 18 months. This has interfered with her right to the quiet enjoyment of her home. The landlord has not provided the resident with a permanent solution over 2 years after she reported the issue. This amounts to maladministration.

22. The landlord did not uphold the stage 1 complaint. However, it failed to address the resident’s main concerns of delays to works and poor communication. In the stage 2 response, the landlord did not confirm if the complaint was upheld but did apologise for lack of communication and delays. However, it did not compensate the resident for this. The landlord’s failure to fully address the resident’s concerns in its responses, and to provide suitable compensation amounts to service failure. We have made an order for compensation.

Learning

Communication

23. Ongoing communication with the resident from the point of discovery of water under the property could have prevented this complaint. The landlord should listen to the resident’s concerns and alleviate these.