NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited (202507997)

Background

1. The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. The resident reported a burst pipe in January 2025. While the repair works have now been completed, the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to assess or award compensation for the water damage sustained to the kitchen, lounge, utility and WC as a result of the leak.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Flood damage at the property and the level of compensation.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of flood damage at the property and the level of compensation.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Reasons

Flood damage at the property and the level of compensation

5. The tenancy handbook states that the landlord is responsible for repairs relating to the water supply, including pipes and kitchen fittings such as doors. Under the repair policy, emergency repairs should be addressed within 24 hours, while non‑urgent repairs are to be completed within 30 days and routine repairs within 90 days.
6. The landlord’s initial response to the leak on 10 January 2025 was reasonable. The resident reported a burst pipe with ankle deep water, and the landlord correctly logged this as an emergency repair. This was in line with its repairs policy. Although the out of hours contractor did not attend the same night, attendance took place within 24 hours, which met the landlord’s emergency repair timescale.
7. Despite the initial emergency response, the overall handling of the repairs was unreasonable due to the length of time taken to fully resolve the damage. The leak occurred on 10 January 2025, and repairs were not confirmed as complete until 10 July 2025. This meant that the resident waited approximately 6 months for resolution. This timescale was not in line with the landlord’s repair policies, which set out 30 days for non-urgent repairs and 90 days for routine repairs. Even allowing for the complexity of the works, a 6-month period represented an excessive and unreasonable delay.
8. The landlord’s communication during this period was also poor. The schedule of works was not provided to the resident until 23 April 2025, around 2.5 months after the leak occurred. During this time, the resident was left without a clear action plan, despite experiencing water damage across multiple areas of the home.
9. The landlord stated that it did not offer the resident compensation because the resident had not explicitly requested it. However, the landlord’s decision not to consider or offer compensation was unreasonable and inconsistent with its own compensation policy. The policy confirms that compensation may be appropriate where a resident experiences delay, inconvenience, failure to meet service standards, or poor complaint handling. All of these circumstances were present in this case, including prolonged repair times and delays in communication.
10. The landlord’s position that compensation was not considered because the resident did not explicitly raise it during the complaint process is not supported by its policy. The compensation policy makes clear that compensation should be considered as part of resolving a complaint where service failure has occurred, regardless of whether the resident formally requested it. This represents a failure by the landlord to properly apply its own policy.
11. Furthermore, while the policy states that compensation is usually considered once works are completed, by the time of the stage 2 response all remedial works had been finished. The landlord therefore had sufficient information to assess the full impact on the resident but failed to do so. Given the 6-month repair period, loss of use of parts of the home, and distress caused by delays and poor communication, the absence of any compensation offer is disproportionate and unreasonable.

Complaint handling

12. While the landlord acknowledged the initial complaint promptly on 7 April 2025, it failed to issue the stage 1 response within the policy timeframe of 10 working days from acknowledgement, requiring multiple extensions and prompting the resident to chase progress. The stage 1 response was not issued until 12 June 2025, over 2 months after the complaint was raised. Although staff absence and contractor issues were cited, these internal matters do not mitigate the impact on the resident and amount to poor complaint handling.

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.