Bristol City Council (202412811)

Decision
Case ID	202412811
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Bristol City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	1 May 2026

Background

1. The resident has held the tenancy of the property, a ground floor flat since, 2010. He is represented by solicitors who we also refer to as ‘the resident’, unless stated otherwise. On 2 July 2023 the resident reported an uncontainable leak from a bathroom in a leaseholder property, above affecting the electrics. Soon after he reported his bathroom ceiling had collapsed and his kitchen ceiling was waterlogged. He was worried about returning home from working away as he believed the property was uninhabitable and unsafe.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

1. Report of a leak.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord provided reasonable redress for its handling of the report of a leak.
4. We found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for it to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not complete repairs or consider whether the resident needed temporary accommodation at the earliest opportunity. However, it has awarded appropriate remedy to put right these failures.
6. The landlord did not reply to the resident’s complaints in line with the time limits set out in its complaint policy and our complaint handling code (the Code).

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 found in this report. It must ensure the apology is, meaningful, empathetic and has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 29 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.	No later than 29 May 2026

 Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £3,500 previously offered for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures handling his report of a leak.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 October 2023	The representative sent a letter of claim to the landlord under the pre-action protocol for housing condition claims. He said the following issues were outstanding following the leak: A collapsed bathroom ceiling making the bath and toilet unusable. Mould in the hallway. Loose plaster, mould and water staining in the kitchen. They said this was causing the resident discomfort, inconvenience, and distress and affecting his enjoyment of the property.
18 January to 26 April 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response, saying it dealt with letters of claim through its complaint process. It: Confirmed the leak in the leaseholder property was resolved. Listed remedial work for the resident’s bathroom, hall and kitchen. Apologised for not completing work sooner, as it could not confirm if the leaseholder had resolved the leak. Agreed to consider compensation from when it should have acted. It offered to discuss awarding costs for some areas the resident wanted to redecorate himself. The landlord later offered £3,000 compensation for 100% of the rent paid between 2 July 2023 and 31 January 2024, redecoration costs, and an unrelated issue (a new door lock).
20 May 2024	As the resident did not respond to the landlord’s compensation offer, it escalated his complaint to stage 2. The resident later asked the landlord to compensate him for additional accommodation costs, loss of earnings and damaged and lost belongings.
20 June 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said: It apologised for not completing repairs reported on 2 July 2023 until 31 January 2024. It was unable to compensate the resident for alternative accommodation in another county and any associated loss of earnings. It said it could have provided local accommodation at a much lower cost allowing him to work. The resident could claim for damaged or lost items on his contents insurance or seek legal advice about claiming from the leaseholder. He could also claim on its insurance if he believed its actions had caused injury or damage. It reiterated its earlier offer of compensation and awarded a further £500 for distress, frustration and inconvenience caused by repair delays.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us the landlord took 6 months to complete repairs. He wants compensation for loss of earnings and the added costs of 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak
Finding	Reasonable redress

7. The landlord has not disputed responsibility for repairs in the resident’s property following the leak from the leaseholder property above. Its repair policy at the time of the first report, said it aimed to respond to reports of unsafe power or electrical fittings within 24 hours. It is positive the landlord attended within this timeframe and made the electrics safe. Records show a plumber also attended, seemingly to address the leak.
8. The repair policy did not say how long the landlord should take to complete any follow up work. It has since been updated. It now says non-emergency repairs, which are a risk to health, safety, or the structure of the property, should be addressed within 7 days. We have assessed the landlord’s handling of the initial reports against this timeframe
9. The landlord removed the ceiling on 22 July 2023. While this was outside the 7-day time limit, this was reasonable. The ceiling held asbestos so the landlord needed to instruct specialist contractors. The landlord has acknowledged it did not complete the remaining repairs until 31 January 2024, significantly outside its repair time frame.
10. It is clear the landlord faced difficulties completing repairs. Its position that it could not complete remedial work in the property until the leak was resolved, was reasonable. It was likely that ongoing water ingress, caused when the leaseholder used their bathroom facilities, would have made the repairs ineffective and the problem was likely to reoccur.
11. The leaseholder was primarily responsible for repairing the leak. Records show the landlord was pro-active and inspected the leak in their property more than once, and soon after the resident reported the issue. It also told the leaseholder what she needed to do to resolve the issue. However, the leak remained unresolved for some time, despite the landlord’s efforts.
12. We understand why the landlord initially tried to engage with the leaseholder, who was also a landlord. It is reasonable to expect the leaseholder would complete the repairs she was responsible for. However, its informal attempts to persuade the leaseholder to repair the leak were unsuccessful.
13. The landlord could have accessed the leaseholder property and completed work, through the terms and conditions of the lease, subject to giving the leaseholder adequate notice. However, it did not consider pursuing this until November 2023, 4 months after the resident’s first report. We understand the landlord’s reluctance to pursue this initially. It believed the leaseholder may have been vulnerable. However, it should have considered taking this action sooner as the resident had reported the property was unsafe and uninhabitable.
14. The landlord has not told us when or how the leak was resolved but records show the leaseholder allowed it to inspect the issue on 13 December 2023. It appears the leak was resolved shortly after, allowing the landlord to complete the outstanding work over the following month.
15. The landlord’s decant (temporary accommodation) policy says it will carry out work while the tenant remains in their home wherever possible. However, it says it will consider moving residents on a temporary or permanent basis when a property:
    1. Needs major repair work and would be uninhabitable.
    2. Would be unsafe for an extended period.
16. The resident told the landlord he believed the property was unsafe and uninhabitable on 3 and 5 July 2023. There is no evidence the landlord adequately considered the suitability of the property, or whether temporary accommodation was appropriate, until 15 December 2023, 5 months later.
17. The temporary accommodation referral referenced a disrepair survey of 8 November 2023. We have not seen a record of this. However, the landlord’s stage 1 response said it confirmed the outstanding repairs reported by the resident and said the bathroom ceiling was in a state of disrepair. The temporary accommodation referral went on to say the resident had no toilet facility and was unable to use his bathroom. It said he needed alternative accommodation immediately as the property was uninhabitable.
18. The landlord approved temporary accommodation the same day and spoke with the resident on 21 December 2023. During the call the resident said he had been living in a caravan in another county since July 2023. He said this was because the property was uninhabitable and the toilet from the property above was leaking and contaminating his property.
19. The landlord offered alternative permanent accommodationsoon after, at the resident’s request. However, records of 15 January 2024 document the resident declined it as the property was too small. It is noted that the resident would not commit to a type of temporary accommodation. The repairs were completed not long after and he was able to return to the property.
20. The landlord has acknowledged disrepair within the property from July 2023 to 31 January 2024 and that it should have completed work sooner. The resident agrees the landlord has now completed the repairs. Therefore, the question before us is whether the landlord has provided sufficient remedy for its failings and put them right in line with our dispute resolution principles.
21. To do this, we consider both the events which initially prompted the complaint and the landlord’s response. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
22. In assessing the remedy we consider that the resident was unable to live in the property for 6 months due to outstanding repairs and a lack of bathroom facilities. We have not seen that he told the landlord he had sourced alternative accommodation until December 2023. However, he had reported the property was unsafe and uninhabitable from the outset, but the landlord did not consider alternative accommodation at the right time. We understand this caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
23. Further, the resident spent significant time and trouble progressing the issue. Repairs only started to meaningfully progress after the landlord received the letter of claim. The resident and the landlord have both confirmed that legal proceedings were not issued. Therefore, we have been able to continue with the investigation.
24. The landlord has acknowledged the resident was unable to stay in the property throughout the outstanding repair period. Its offer to reimburse the rent for this period was appropriate, given it did not offer temporary accommodation.
25. The resident believes the landlord should also pay for additional accommodation costs throughout this time and for loss of earnings. The landlord’s decision not to pay this is reasonable. We have not seen that the resident told the landlord he was staying in another county until 5 months later. The landlord’s position that it could have sourced cheaper accommodation within the local area was appropriate. The resident could have explored this and other options with the landlord before deciding to stay in another county and restrict his ability to work.
26. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for damaged and lost personal belongings was also appropriate. This is because the source of the leak, which may have caused any damage, was in the leaseholder property. However, it is also positive the landlord signposted the resident to its own insurer, if he believed its actions resulted in damage or loss. Its insurer could assess whether the landlord was liable for any damage and if the resident should be compensated for this.
27. The landlord’s award of £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the repair delays was reasonable. The landlord says it does not have a specific compensation policy and uses our compensation guidance as a standard for awards. The award of £500 is in line with our compensation guidance for when there has been a failure that adversely affected a resident, with no permanent impact.
28. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the £3,500 compensation offered in relation to its handling of the reports of the leak, if it has not done so already. This recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

29. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint policy. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is within the timeframes specified in the Code. However, the Code says landlords must acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It must then issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
30. While the landlord said it deals with letters of claim through the complaint process, we have not seen any policy supporting this position. However, the representative sent the letter of claim. It is reasonable to expect he would know how to challenge this course of action if he disagreed with it or any associated timeframes for the landlord to respond.
31. The landlord’s stage 1 response says it told the representative it was dealing with the pre-action protocol letter of claim under the complaint process. We have not seen a record of this. Nor have we seen that it told him when to expect a reply. The stage 1 response was issued 59 working days late. However, it is clear the landlord was addressing the substantive issues during this time and trying to resolve outstanding repairs.
32. Although the landlord offered to consider compensation in its stage 1 response, it did not make an offer until 26 April 2024. We know it was waiting for the resident to provide supporting evidence which may have contributed to some of the delay. However, again we have not seen any associated records.
33. It appears the landlord escalated the matter as it could not confirm it had resolved the complaint to the resident’s satisfaction. It is positive it went on to contact him and confirm this. The stage 2 response was issued 2 working days outside the landlord’s complaint policy, but within the timeframes set out in the Code.
34. The landlord has not acknowledged its stage 1 complaint handling delays and has therefore missed an opportunity to put things right. While delays did not affect the overall outcome for the resident, they were significant so we have found maladministration. We order the landlord to apologise for this.
35. We also order the landlord to pay £50 compensation for inconvenience caused to the resident. In deciding this, we consider that we have not seen that the resident spent significant time or trouble chasing a response or reports that the delay caused any further distress, outside of the substantive issue. Further, the delay did not prevent the resident escalating his complaint as he did not do so at the earliest opportunity. The landlord escalated his complaint after he did not respond to its compensation offer.

Learning

Knowledge information management (KIM – record keeping)

36. The landlord provided enough information to enable us to reach a robust determination. However, it has not provided supporting evidence of key events. Our spotlight report on KIM says records should tell the full story of what happened. Our centre for learning has further resources to help landlord’s keep accurate records, make clear decisions, and provide a safer, more reliable service for residents.

Communication

37. We have not seen that the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of repairs. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that landlords can avoid failures when they let residents know what to expect about repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.