Bristol City Council (202451973)

Decision
Case ID	202451973
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Bristol City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	27 April 2026

Background

1. The resident’s household has vulnerabilities due to multiple health conditions. In 2023, the landlord confirmed that the property required major works to address water ingress. The landlord advised that the resident would need to move out for the works to begin. By December 2024, the works had not started, and the condition of the property had deteriorated while the resident remained in occupation. This led the resident to raise a formal complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Water ingress repairs and an associated move to alternative accommodation.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Maladministration in its handling of water ingress repairs and an associated move to alternative accommodation.
   2. Service failure in its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs and an associated move

4. There was a lack of proactive monitoring of the condition of the resident’s property and of timely action to complete repairs at the earliest opportunity. Ongoing communication shortcomings and limited consideration of the impact on the resident contributed to a prolonged process which lacked learning and caused distress. The remedy offered during the complaints procedure was not proportionate to the impact these issues had on the resident.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s stage 2 complaint did not fully align with its complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations around landlord complaint handling practices.

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 member of staff 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 25 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £750 in compensation, made up as follows: £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failures in the landlord’s handling of water ingress repairs and an associated move to alternative accommodation £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failures in the landlord’s handling of the associated 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 25 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord considers whether it should provide additional staff training on its decant policy and procedures to ensure these are applied consistently and correctly, while giving reasonable consideration to individual circumstances.
We recommend that the landlord pay the resident the £525 disturbance payment awarded in February 2025, if it has not done so already.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 December 2024	The resident raised a complaint about ongoing concerns regarding the condition of her property, in which she: requested that the repairs be completed or that a move be facilitated said the landlord had not provided adequate support and that its approach did not take proper account of her circumstances, causing her to feel undermined and inadequately supported said she felt the landlord discriminated against her son because of his disabilities
24 December 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It: explained that delays in completing the repairs arose from uncertainty about the resident’s housing requirements as the resident’s circumstances had changed over time, specifically whether she wished to be rehoused alone or with her son confirmed that the resident required a 2-bedroom property and said it had awarded her the highest priority for rehousing because of the outstanding repairs at the property said it had made a direct property offer, which the resident declined because it did not meet her requirements noted that the resident’s rehousing choices were limited by her support needs and encouraged her to consider expanding her preferred areas to improve her chances of an offer asked whether she would consider moving into temporary accommodation while the repairs were completed, with the intention of returning to the property afterwards apologised that the resident felt unsupported and said it would discuss this with her housing officer
14 January 2025	The resident made a further complaint because the issues remained unresolved. She said: this had caused damage to her personal belongings, and she had not been given details on how to claim for this despite having asked on multiple occasions she felt pressured to accept accommodation that she considered unsuitable she continued to feel that there had been discrimination by the landlord she wanted written confirmation that the landlord would cover the costs of any temporary accommodation and storage if a move was required while the repairs were completed
12 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It: explained that, due to the condition of the resident’s property and the extent of the repairs required, it had awarded her the highest priority for rehousing said it had made a property offer in a high-rise building, which the resident declined, but noted that the building had a lift and therefore, was suitable for a temporary move confirmed that the resident had since accepted a temporary move to a hotel, it said this included storage for her belongings and that it would arrange a disturbance payment said the leak remained unresolved because it would be unsafe to carry out investigative works while the resident was living at the property explained that repairs could only take place once the investigation had been completed and that the property remained habitable until January 2025, when it took more urgent action to move the resident out shared the contact details for its insurance department so the resident could make a claim for damage to her belongings said the advice given by the housing officer about the resident’s rehousing options had been “realistic” acknowledged that it failed to get back to her about a property offer and apologised for any impact this caused agreed there had been a lack of ownership of the temporary move process and that communication about it had been poor awarded £50 for the associated distress and inconvenience
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because she remained dissatisfied with the outcome of her complaint. She said the landlord had not offered a remedy that adequately put things right or fully recognised the impact its handling of the repairs had on her.

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 water ingress repairs and an associated move to alternative accommodation
Finding	Maladministration

6. In 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about water entering her property and causing internal damage. In June 2023, the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response explaining that it would need the resident to vacate the property so that the works could be completed. It encouraged her to bid for advertised properties as they became available through the local authority’s choice-based lettings housing register.
7. Our Scheme states that we may not normally investigate complaints referred to us more than 12 months after the landlord’s final response. In this case, the landlord issued its final complaint response on 26 June 2023. The resident did not refer the complaint to us at that time, and we have seen no evidence of factors that prevented her from doing so. For this reason, we have referred to the June 2023 complaint response for context only.
8. Our investigation focuses on events from June 2023 to March 2025. This period covers the lead-up to the resident raising a further complaint and extends to the point at which the landlord completed the actions it committed to through its subsequent complaints procedure.

Repairs and temporary rehousing 

9. Once the landlord became aware of the property’s condition, it was required to carry out repairs as soon as practicable. Although it was reasonable to require the resident to vacate during the works, there was still an obligation on the landlord to keep the property safe and in a reasonable state of repair while it remained occupied.
10. As part of her complaint, the resident said that the landlord acted discriminatorily in its handling of the repairs and the temporary rehousing arrangements. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective for the matter to be considered by a court, tribunal, or other appropriate procedure. Allegations of discrimination are better suited to determination by the courts, which have the relevant powers and expertise to assess such claims. For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate this aspect of the resident’s complaint. However, we have given considered whether the landlord gave due regard to any known vulnerabilities during this investigation.
11. Effective communication helps reduce distress and inconvenience for residents. In this case, the landlord’s communication did not consistently achieve this. Its records do not reflect that it always considered the impact of the situation on the resident. In September 2023, the landlord recorded that, after several requests from the resident for contact about rehousing options and repairs, it would not log further requests. It said the resident was already aware of the relevant policies, procedures, and information. This response did not indicate ongoing engagement with the resident’s concerns. It also limited opportunities to review any changes in the property’s condition and to manage the resident’s expectations at the time. This likely contributed to the resident feeling ignored and unsupported.
12. In November 2023, the resident requested temporary accommodation due to ongoing deterioration in the condition of the property. The landlord told her it would only consider temporary accommodation if the property became uninhabitable, which it did not consider to be the case at that time. The landlord did not carry out further enquiries into the resident’s report. As a result, it is unclear how it satisfied itself that the property remained habitable. This limited its ability to demonstrate appropriate consideration of its repair obligations or to monitor the property’s condition proactively. This approach may have contributed to further distress for the resident.
13. The landlord’s position was also not consistent with its decant policy. The policy allows for a temporary move to enable major works to proceed and does not only require a property to be uninhabitable before this is considered. In this case, the landlord did not show that it considered this option. As a result, it failed to demonstrate that it had taken full account of the available options that may have supported earlier progress with the required works. This likely prolonged the distress experienced by the resident.
14. In February 2024, the resident raised further concerns after stating that a surveyor had told her the property was unsafe to live in. We have seen no evidence to confirm that this advice was given, so we cannot confirm that this was the case. An internal email from September 2024 recorded that the resident had contacted the landlord on several occasions after stating she had been told the property was unsafe to live in and had not received a response. The landlord did not engage with or address these concerns. As a result, the resident remained in avoidable uncertainty about the safety of her home for an extended period. This indicates that the landlord failed to recognise the impact this would have had on the resident.
15. By October 2024, a further inspection confirmed that the flooring throughout the property had deteriorated and that the repairs required prioritisation. Despite this, the landlord did not show that it considered all available options to progress the repairs, including pursuing enforcement action. Its response did not reflect the urgency identified at the inspection or demonstrate that it took proportionate steps to ensure the repairs progressed in line with its repair obligations, given the known impact on the resident.
16. The resident also told the landlord that water ingress had damaged her possessions. At that time, the landlord did not provide information about how to make a claim for damage to belongings. This was a further communication shortcoming and a missed opportunity to offer timely, practical guidance that may have helped resolve the issue at an early stage. Although the landlord later addressed this point in its stage 2 complaint response, it did so around 5 months after the resident first reported the damage. This delay was not reasonable and may have caused the resident avoidable frustration.
17. An internal record dated 29 October 2024 noted that the resident was seeking contact with her housing officer about the outstanding repairs. By 21 November 2024, the landlord recorded that it had limited new information to provide, despite the resident making repeated requests for updates. This indicates a continued lack of proactive communication and oversight. The landlord did not demonstrate that it took steps to provide meaningful updates or to review how the situation was progressing. This approach was likely to have caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience. It also may have resulted in her losing some trust in the landlord.
18. By the time the resident reported in January 2025 that a visitor’s foot had “gone through” the bathroom floor, the landlord had missed several opportunities to take earlier action. It did not demonstrate that it had fully considered or used all available options to progress the repairs before the condition of the property reached a point where a safety issue had occurred. At this stage, the landlord responded by providing temporary accommodation and storage for the resident in line with its decant policy. However, it should not have required this incident to prompt action that had already been identified as necessary much earlier. The repairs were completed, and the resident returned to the property in March 2025.
19. While the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that there had been a “lack of ownership” in its handling of the temporary move process, it did not fully recognise the extent of the failures identified through our investigation. This limited how far it put things right for the resident and did not demonstrate clear learning to prevent similar issues arising in future.
20. The resident has told us that the quality of the repairs was poor and there are ongoing issues. We cannot assess these concerns at this stage because the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to respond. The resident may wish to raise these matters as a new complaint with the landlord if she has not already done so. If she remains dissatisfied after the landlord issues its response, she may bring the matter to us as a new complaint.

Long-term rehousing

21. The landlord acted appropriately by encouraging the resident on several occasions to bid for properties through the local authority’s housing register and to consider widening her rehousing areas. This was a reasonable step to explore potential longer-term housing options and increase the resident’s rehousing options. While the resident raised during the complaints procedure that she was upset that her housing officer reportedly described her as being “fussy”, we were not present during this conversation and without clear evidence, we cannot confirm whether this happened.
22. We can only investigate complaints about local authorities when they are acting as a landlord under a licence, lease, or social housing tenancy. In this case, the local authority was not acting in that capacity in its handling of the resident’s rehousing application or allocation of social housing. Instead, it was exercising its broader statutory role in managing the housing register and allocating social housing. We therefore have no power to investigate the local authority’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application and the properties that were offered to her through the housing register. The resident may be able to raise this matter with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) if she is dissatisfied with the local authority’s handling of the application, if she has not already done so.
23. However, the evidence shows that the landlord placed excessive reliance on this process being successful before progressing the required repairs. There was no certainty about when, or if, a suitable property would become available. This approach did not provide a reasonable basis for delaying its repair obligations or addressing the deteriorating conditions in the property while the resident continued to live there.

Putting things right

24. In line with its decant policy, the landlord awarded the resident a £525 disturbance payment for the period she was required to vacate the property between February 2025 and March 2025. However, the landlord’s award of £50 for distress and inconvenience, made during the complaints procedure, was not fair or proportionate given the failures we have identified that occurred between June 2023 and February 2025. When deciding what compensation may be appropriate to account for this, we have considered our compensation guidance which sets out our approach to compensation and is published on our website.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

25. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Where it needs to extend the stage 2 timescale, the policy requires the landlord to tell the resident and explain the reasons for the extension. These timescales and requirements align with the Code.
26. At stage 1, the landlord acknowledged and responded to the complaint the following working day after the complaint was raised. This was prompt. The landlord then acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint within a reasonable timescale. It issued its stage 2 response on 12 March 2025, which exceeded its 20 working day timescale.
27. Although the landlord informed the resident on 12 February 2025 and 26 February 2025 that it needed more time to complete its investigation, it communicated both extensions on the dates it had previously said it would aim to issue its response. Communicating extensions only when a response is due is likely to have caused frustration and suggests a reactive approach to complaint handling. In addition, the landlord did not fully explain the reason for the second extension. This did not meet the expectations of the Code, which says that extensions of more than 20 working days should only occur for good reason and that the landlord must clearly explain that reason to the resident. The lack of transparency may have reduced the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
28. The landlord did not offer a remedy to put things right. This was not reasonable given the impact its handling of the resident’s complaint had on her. When deciding an appropriate amount of compensation, we considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified above and the guidance set out in our compensation policy, as referenced above.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

29. The records that the landlord provided were adequate for us to complete our investigation.

Communication

30. The landlord’s communication with the resident fell short of expectations around effective communication. There were periods where there was a lack of communication. Our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights identified that sensitive and tailored communication can reduce distress experienced by residents. The landlord may wish to review its communication with residents in line with the findings set out in our spotlight report.

Complaint handling

31. The landlord’s complaint handling did not meet the requirements of the Code. The landlord may wish to review the training provided to staff and its procedures to ensure that its complaint handling is in line with these requirements.