Brighton and Hove City Council (202337355)

Decision
Case ID	202337355
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Brighton and Hove City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	6 January 2026

Background

A leak from the flat above damaged the resident’s ceiling and kitchen units. She was away from the property at the time caring for her poorly mother.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Kitchen leak and associated repairs.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s kitchen leak and associated repairs.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s kitchen leak and associated repairs

The landlord did not complete the repair in line with its policy timescales. Its communication was poor, and it did not keep the resident updated.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord did not send the resident a stage 1 complaint response in writing.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is provided by a senior manager the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 03 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 made up as follows: £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s leak £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint 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 03 February 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection about her damp concerns. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: inspects the kitchen and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards the most likely cause of the damp smell whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 03 February 2026
4	Contact order The landlord must contact the resident and arrange to assess any outstanding repairs and her kitchen redecoration as per its stage 2 resolution. It must provide the likely timescales to commence and complete the work	No later than 03 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
21 November 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said her kitchen flooded in July 2023 and was unhappy the repair work was outstanding and with its communication. She said she left it a set of keys for access while she was away and was unhappy it did not complete all the work.
23 November 2023	The landlord spoke to the resident about her complaint and explained repairs were ongoing. It closed her stage 1 complaint but did not send a written response.
8 January 2024	The resident escalated her complaint because she was unhappy about the condition of her property. She said the property was unhabitable and was unhappy the landlord did not provide a dehumidifier or reconnect her lights. She re-iterated the housing office had a set of her keys and was unhappy with the landlord’s communication.
18 January 2024	The landlord contacted the resident and discussed her stage 2 complaint.
23 January 2024	The landlord wrote to the resident and apologised for its delay starting her stage 2 complaint investigation. It said it would respond by 2 February 2024.
9 February 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response and said: it completed all jobs within its target times but acknowledged some electrical work outstanding it could provide a dehumidifier, but she would need to be at the property to use it her property was not inhabitable and if she was living there, she would have remained there during its repairs. It said it would have provided temporary lighting if she was there and would possibly have considered rehousing her for a short period while the leak dried it was sorry she did not receive the contact she hoped for. It committed to calling her weekly and offered to re-decorate her kitchen
29 February 2024	The resident wrote to the landlord because she was unhappy with its stage 2 response. She said the property was not habitable and she could not use her kitchen because it did not move her appliances back after it replastered. She accepted its offer of contact to discuss her kitchen re-decoration and outstanding issues but said she had not received weekly calls.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She was unhappy with the landlord’s delay and repairs handling. She would like the landlord to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience it caused her. She was also unhappy it did not replace all her lower kitchen units and suspected there was damp behind them.

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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s kitchen leak and associated repairs
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord attended the resident’s leak report promptly and within its 24-hour timescale. It made her property safe and returned on 31 July 2023 to assess the electrics but found no water ingress. It raised plastering work that day for the kitchen and lounge ceilings.
On 16 August 2023, the landlord arranged a mould wash and its plastering team attended to assess repairs. It found mould damage to the kitchen units and raised work to replace them. It could not start plastering work because it found asbestos. It arranged an appointment for 9 October 2023 to remove the asbestos. Before this appointment, it disconnected the lights and said it would reconnect them after it completed the plastering work.
Following the asbestos removal, the landlord attended on 16 October 2023 to repair the kitchen units but said no one answered the door or phone. It returned on 19 October 2023 to complete the plastering but was unable to because some asbestos remained. It did not update the resident about this. After it removed the remaining asbestos on 30 January 2024, the landlord completed the plastering work on 13 February 2024 and reconnected the lights on 14 February 2024.
In its stage 2 response the landlord accepted it treated each job individually and did not work on them together to reach a timely conclusion. It said it completed all jobs within its target times, but its records show it did not. It raised plastering work on 31 July 2023 which it completed on 13 February 2024. It raised a job on 17 August 2023 to replace the kitchen units and sink, but it replaced wall units on 30 October 2023 and recorded the repair as completed on 8 August 2024. These jobs far exceeded its repairs policy timescale of 20 working days. Its stage 2 response also recognised a period of 6 and a half months from the leak to outstanding work which contradicts its statement that it completed all jobs within its target times.
The landlord found asbestos which initially delayed work. However, the landlord knew some asbestos was left in October 2023 but did not arrange to remove it until after the resident escalated her complaint in January 2024.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it was unsure about visiting the resident’s property without her there, but she gave it permission and left a set of keys. It knew she spent most of her time caring for her mother several miles away. It attempted a visit on 16 October 2023 but said no one answered. However, it attended before and after without her there. This was likely to cause the resident distress and confusion. She also signed a disclaimer on 22 August 2023 which allowed it to complete work in the property while she was away.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for its communication and said it would call the resident weekly until it completed work, but it did not. As part of its stage 2 resolution, it offered to redecorate her kitchen. It said it would arrange a visit or a video call to discuss this and any outstanding repairs. The resident said it has not redecorated her kitchen or contacted her about this. We have ordered the landlord to contact the resident and honour the commitment it made to redecorate.
Due to the landlord’s delay completing the repair, its poor communication and its failure to act on its stage 2 complaint resolution, we found maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation which is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which adversely affected the resident.
The resident also reported concerns about damp and a persistent smell. She said the landlord did not replace all the lower kitchen units and she suspects there is damp behind an old unit. The landlord raised a job on 9 February 2024 about this, but it has not recorded a completion date. We have made an order for the landlord to attend and complete a damp inspection.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord had a 2-stage complaints policy. It said it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, it said it would acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and respond within 20 working days. This was not in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time. We have assessed the landlord’s complaint handling against the Code which was applicable at the time (2022).
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in writing. This was not in line with the Code which said at completion of the stage 1, landlords must confirm in writing the complaint stage, definition, decision with reasons, any remedy or outstanding actions and escalation details. By failing to issue a stage 1 response, it missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint at an earlier stage.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response 24 working days after the resident’s escalation. This was not in line with its policy or the Code unless it agreed an extension. The 4-working day delay was unlikely to have any significant impact or detriment to the resident. However, its response was also not in line with the timescale it gave in its delayed acknowledgement, which it sent 11 working days after her escalation request.
Due to the landlord’s failure to send the resident a stage 1 complaint response in writing and its delay in acknowledging her complaint escalation, we found maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation which is in keeping with our remedies guidance for failings which the landlord did not acknowledge but had no permanent impact on the resident.
We have not ordered the landlord to review its complaints policy because its updated policy is compliant with our current Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s repairs record keeping was reasonable. However, it should ensure it keeps clear and full complaint records detailing contents of its calls with residents.

Communication

The landlord’s communication was poor. It should consider how it can improve its communication with residents for repair updates and with its contractors for repair work access.