Cambridge City Council (202324956)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324956

Cambridge City Council

10 October 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s:
    1. Reports of outstanding repairs at the property.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority. Her tenancy began in July 2023, and she lives in a house with her 4 children.
  2. On 14 August 2023, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said several repairs that should have been completed before she moved into the property remained outstanding. These included an overgrown garden containing glass, cans, and food waste; a bathroom in poor condition; uneven and loose floorboards with nails sticking out; no connection for the washing machine; and gas and electricity meters left with over £100 of debt. She also said that despite trying to raise her concerns with the repairs team, nobody had responded to her.
  3. On 28 September 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It apologised for the delay in replying and for the lack of support in addressing the resident’s concerns. It confirmed that it had installed an extra kitchen unit and awarded the resident a £100 decoration voucher. It also said that it was waiting for the resident to provide evidence of the utility debt she had paid so it could investigate further.
  4. On 11 October 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She raised further issues, including the rear garden fencing falling, the front door being weak and not providing adequate security, the loft being dirty and needing more insulation, the kitchen units and surfaces not being properly installed, and a hole in the guttering.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 7 December 2023. It apologised and accepted that the issues with the garden, flooring, washing machine connectionand guttering should have been addressed before the resident moved in. It said, however, that all fence posts and panels had been replaced during the voids process, that the bathroom had been signed off with no issues, and that the front door was safe and secure. It explained that while it had topped up insulation in the loft, the voids process did not generally include cleaning of the loft space.
  6. It also confirmed that further works had been completed in the kitchen and that it believed the utility meters were clear of debt before the resident moved in. The landlord noted it had already given the resident £20 towards the debt and offered a further £270 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience she had experienced.
  7. In February 2024, the resident brought her complaint to our service. She said repairs were still outstanding at the property and that she was dissatisfied with the compensation the landlord had offered.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs at the property

Garden, washing machine, guttering, and floors

  1. The landlord accepted that repairs relating to the garden, washing machine outlet, guttering, and floors were not completed before the resident moved in. The resident’s tenancy conditions confirms that the outgoing tenant was responsible for keeping the garden neat, tidy, and free of rubbish, while the landlord is responsible for the repair of floors, gutters, and water fittings. By not ensuring these obligations were met, the landlord allowed the resident to move into a home that was not properly prepared. This caused her immediate inconvenience and avoidable distress.
  2. In relation to the garden, once the resident reported it was overgrown and hazardous, the landlord was on notice to act. Its records show operatives swept the garden for glass in late August 2023 and noted it needed another sweep, but we have seen no evidence this was carried out, such as photographs or inspection notes. The resident continued to report that the garden remained full of rubbish and unsafe in September and November 2023.
  3. This inconsistency between the landlord’s limited records and the resident’s reports means we cannot reasonably conclude the garden was made safe or suitable. Without proper records, the landlord cannot be assured works were completed to the required standard, nor demonstrate accountability to the resident or this service.
  4. The resident has since told us the garden remains in a dangerous condition, which underlines the importance of landlords keeping proper records of completed works. The landlord must now inspect the rear garden, complete any necessary clearance works, and provide dated photographs or inspection records to evidence completion, to be shared with this service.
  5. Regarding the washing machine connection, the evidence shows this was resolved by the landlord a week after being put on notice, while the guttering was repaired 2 weeks after being reported. Both repairs were completed within the landlord’s repairs policy timescales, which allows between 24 hours and 20 working days for repairs depending on the urgency. This demonstrated that the landlord treated both matters with urgency. That said, we acknowledge that any period without a working washing machine would have been inconvenient and created additional expense for the resident, particularly as she had 4 young children.
  6. The position with the floors is less clear. The landlord’s records show it raised a job in August 2023 to remove and repair the nails and holes, but we have seen no evidence to confirm whether these works went ahead. Instead, the evidence shows that in November 2023, a support worker visited the resident’s home and raised concerns about the dangerous condition of the floors, and the resident herself also made further reports in the same month. Despite the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in December 2023 stating the issue had been resolved, it has provided no inspection records or photographs to support this.
  7. Without proper evidence, we cannot be satisfied the works were completed in full or to a reasonable standard. This uncertainty is significant given the clear risks of uneven surfaces and nails sticking out. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) specifically identifies hazards such as these, providing landlords with a framework to identify and address dangers that threaten a home’s fitness. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it met its tenancy obligations or that it gave proper regard to the HHSRS framework in responding to these risks. As a result, the resident and her children were left living with ongoing concerns about safety and comfort, causing them avoidable distress.
  8. The resident has since told us the floors remain unsafe. The landlord must now inspect the floors throughout the property, identify and complete any outstanding defects. It must also take dated completion photographs or inspection records to evidence completion, to be shared with this service.

Fencing, bathroom, and front door

  1. The landlord did not act reasonably in its handling of the rear garden fence. The evidence shows the resident reported the fence falling in October 2023, and an inspection by a landlord operative in November 2023 confirmed it required repair. Despite this, in its stage 2 complaint response the landlord wrongly told the resident that the fence had already been replaced during the voids process. The evidence shows that only the front fencing had been renewed.
  2. In March 2024, the landlord told the resident the rear garden fence had been added to a planned programme for replacement for 2025. It was reasonable to schedule a full renewal through planned works, as this approach allows a landlord to manage costs, resources, and ensures larger items of work are delivered consistently across its housing stock. However, this did not remove the landlord’s obligation to complete interim repairs to keep the fence safe and usable in the meantime. The evidence shows no such action was taken.
  3. As a result, the resident was left with a fence in disrepair for 18 months before it was finally replaced in April 2025. This went significantly beyond the landlord’s repair timescales and caused the resident prolonged inconvenience and frustration, as well as concern about security and use of her garden.
  4. The landlord’s complaint responses said the bathroom had been in good condition when it was signed off. However, the evidence shows that within a few days of the resident moving in, it carried out repairs to replace taps and clear mould, and it placed the bathroom on its replacement programme. A new bathroom was fitted in January 2024. These actions were completed within its routine repair timescales and addressed the resident’s reports, but they did not support the landlord’s position that the bathroom had been left in a reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy.
  5. We have seen no inspection notes or photographs to verify the condition of the bathroom before the tenancy started, which suggests the landlord did not have this evidence either. It was therefore unreasonable for the landlord to conclude the bathroom had met the relet standard. The resident told us she felt insulted, as if she was being accused of causing damage within days of moving in. By making assertations it could not support, the landlord undermined its otherwise reasonable repair actions and made the resident feel blamed for problems that were not her responsibility.
  6. Turning to the front door, at the end of August 2023 the resident reported that it was thin, cracked, and offered little security. The evidence shows the landlord carried out some minor works that month, fitting a weather bar and chain. However, the resident raised her concerns again in her stage 2 complaint in October 2023. Around the same time, a landlord operative inspected the door and noted it was ‘warped, letting water in,’ and required replacement. The landlord added the door to its programme for replacement.
  7. While planning a full replacement was positive, the resident reasonably questioned what could be done in the meantime. The landlord did address this but stated in its stage 2 reply that the door was safe and secure, despite its own inspection having confirmed earlier works were inadequate. This inconsistency meant that by the end of the complaints process the resident was left feeling her concerns were being dismissed, while she continued to live with a door that was neither weatherproof nor fully secure.
  8. The evidence shows the door was replaced in April 2025. It is positive that the issue has now been fully resolved, which is ultimately the outcome both parties sought.

Kitchen cupboards and utility debt

  1. Shortly after moving in, the resident reported the kitchen surfaces and units needed repair. The evidence shows the landlord made the surfaces safe and installed a new unit by the end of September 2023, around 2 weeks after the report. This was broadly within its repair timescales and in line with its tenancy obligations to keep kitchen fittings in good repair.
  2. However, the resident continued to report in October and November 2023 that the kitchen units were not properly installed and remained defective. The landlord took no further action and its stage 2 response in December 2023 stated all necessary repairs had been completed. This position was not supported by its repair records, which contained no inspection evidence after these newer reports, to show how it reached that conclusion.
  3. The evidence shows that after the complaints process, works were carried out between March and September 2024 to overhaul all kitchen cupboards, which resolved the issue. While this is a positive outcome, the landlord’s earlier handling demonstrated weak follow-through, and it missed earlier opportunities to resolve the problem through its complaints process.
  4. The tenancy agreement makes clear that outgoing tenants are responsible for clearing any outstanding utility debts before leaving the property. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident for evidence of any payments she had made towards such debts so it could confirm whether these related to her tenancy. As the resident did not have full receipts to evidence the amounts paid, the landlord could not verify the total sum claimed. Its decision to pay £20 towards the reported debt represented a fair and proportionate response in the circumstances, acknowledging the inconvenience caused while recognizing the limits of the available evidence.

Conclusion

  1. Through the complaints process, the landlord offered the resident £270 compensation for distress and inconvenience and a £100 decoration voucher. It later increased the award to £350 in April 2024. While this was a reasonable attempt to recognise the impact of the service failures, it did not go far enough to put things right. The increase made after the complaints process had concluded also undermined the purpose of that process, which is to provide timely and proportionate redress.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, available on our website, explains that where a resident’s personal circumstances have aggravated the impact of service failures, this should be reflected in the level of compensation. In this case, the resident had several young children, including a newborn baby at the time of moving in. The cumulative inconvenience and distress of living with ongoing repairs and safety concerns would therefore have had a greater daily impact.
  3. Taking these aggravating factors into account and the cumulative failings identified in this investigation, the landlord’s redress was insufficient, and we find maladministration in how it handled outstanding repairs at the property.
  4. Based on the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, where we have determined maladministration by a landlord which has adversely affected the resident, we may order landlords to pay residents a financial remedy of £100 to £600, to put things right. In this case, the landlord must pay the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of repairs in the property.
  5. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £350 compensation for distress and inconvenience, which can be deducted from the overall compensation if it has already been paid.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The evidence shows the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 34 working days after receiving the resident’s complaint. This was significantly outside its complaints policy timescale, which requires stage 1 complaints to be responded to within 10 working days.
  2. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident 42 working days after receiving the resident’s escalation request. This was also outside its complaints policy timescale, which requires stage 2 complaints to be responded to within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint therefore did not meet the standards set out in its complaints policy. The evidence shows the resident continued to chase updates while waiting for a response, but the landlord did not offer any redress to recognise the time and trouble caused by its delays. On this basis, we find maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s formal complaint.
  4. In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance as referenced above, the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation to recognise the impact of the time and trouble she incurred in pursuing her complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in how it handled outstanding repairs at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it responded to the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident the following compensation:
      1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of repairs in the property.
      2. £100 to recognise the impact of the time and trouble she incurred in pursuing her complaint.
      3. These amounts replace the landlord’s previous offer of £350, which can be deducted from the overall compensation if it has already been paid.
    2. Provide the resident with the £100 decoration voucher it already offered during the complaints process, if it has not already done so.
    3. Inspect the rear garden, complete any necessary clearance works, and provide dated photographs or inspection records to evidence completion, to be shared with this service.
    4. Inspect the floors throughout the property, identify and complete any outstanding defects. It must also take dated completion photographs or inspection records to evidence completion, to be shared with this service.
  2. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.