From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Canterbury City Council (202348393)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202348393

Canterbury City Council

26 August 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a radiator pipework leak and request for compensation for damages resulting from the leak.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom ground floor flat owned by the landlord, which is a local authority. The resident has physical and mental health vulnerabilities. The landlord is aware of his vulnerabilities.
  2. On 15 May 2023 the resident reported a leak from the radiator pipe in the property. The landlord completed the repair on 1 June 2023. It informed the resident it would give him £50 compensation in line with the Right to Repair scheme for the delay in completing the leak repair.
  3. The resident requested to raise a formal complaint on5July 2023. He was unhappy about the length of time taken by the landlord to complete the leak repair, and the £50 compensation it offered. He said the leak had damaged his flooring and walls. He asked the landlord to compensate him for his damaged flooring and walls.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 22 August 2023. It did not issue a stage 1 complaint response. It asked him to inform it if the issues were still outstanding. The resident was unhappy the landlord had not resolved the issues and he escalated his complaint on 7 September 2023.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 1 February 2024. It repeated its offer of £50, explaining this was a payment for the delay in completing the leak repair and not to cover damage costs. It said the resident should contact his own insurer regarding his damaged items. It said it would attend to identify and complete any repairs it was responsible for such a skirting board repair.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He wants the landlord to put the property back as it was before the leak, including replacing damaged flooring in the hallway and bedroom, redecorating, and paying compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had had a detrimental impact on his health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. The resident said he has experienced issues with leaks in the property for the past 3 years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner. This is so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to investigate the issue whilst it is still ‘live’ and sufficient evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion. As issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as an Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken. This investigation relates to the landlord’s’ response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the radiator pipe on 15 May 2023 which was the subject of the complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure on 1 February 2024.

Reports of a radiator pipework leak and request for compensation for damages resulting from the leak

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure, installations, and plumbing of the property, including internal floors and skirting. Decoration is excluded unless damage results from the landlord’s negligence. Under its repairs policy and the statutory Right to Repair scheme, a leak from water or heating pipework is a qualifying repair which should be attended to within 24 hours. If the landlord fails to complete a qualifying repair in time the resident is entitled to compensation of £10 plus £2 per day, capped at £50. In addition, the landlord’s complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) require it to investigate service failures, acknowledge what went wrong, and provide remedies that reflect the resident’s individual circumstances.
  2. The resident first reported a leaking radiator pipe on 15 May 2023. The landlord did not attend until 1 June 2023, 17 days later, well outside the 24-hour target. This was a breach of the Right to Repair standard. During this time, water from the radiator damaged the resident’s laminate flooring, which extended through the flat, and affected skirting boards and paintwork. The resident raised that this created a trip hazard, which was particularly significant given his vulnerabilities: spinal disease, angina, limited mobility, depression, and anxiety.
  3. From as early as 19 May 2023, before the repair was completed, the resident was asking how to claim compensation. The landlord first referred to the £50 Right to Repair payment on 5 June 2023 but there is no evidence it paid this promptly. The resident chased the payment repeatedly in June, August and September 2023, and again when escalating his complaint on 9 June 2023. Despite this, the landlord continued to refer to the £50 figure in its later responses, including its stage 2 complaint response in February 2024, leaving the resident uncertain for many months about whether and when he would receive it.
  4. The landlord’s reliance on the £50 payment was inappropriate because it did not consider the actual impact on the resident. The Code says that any remedy offered must reflect the impact on the resident as a result of any fault identified. In this case, the resident had serious vulnerabilities and there is no evidence the landlord considered the impact of its delay in repairing the leak on the resident. Treating the matter as a routine £50 delay payment, without any adjustment for the resident’s circumstances, was unreasonable.
  5. The landlord also failed to communicate clearly about what its compensation covered. It did not explain that the £50 was solely a Right to Repair payment for delay and not intended to cover damage to the home. This left the resident confused about the purpose of the payment and uncertain about whether further redress would be available. While the landlord suggested a Clerk of Works could revisit, it did not set out a clear plan for addressing the resident’s flooring and decoration concerns.
  6. The landlord repeatedly told the resident to rely on his own insurance to claim for damage to his flooring. Despite the landlord not repairing the leak within its policy timescales it did not signpost the resident to its own liability insurer or explain the claims process. It is not our role to determine if this damage was due to any negligence by the landlord, however as it is possible that there was negligence by the landlord, we have made an order that the landlord refer the matter to its liability insurer.
  7. Overall, the landlord failed to use its complaints process to resolve the issue or put things right. The Code makes clear that the purpose of complaint handling is to put things right where failures have occurred. The landlord did not do this.
  8. The landlord failed to meet urgent repair targets. It provided poor communication about the £50 Right to Repair payment, did not consider the impact of the repair delay on the vulnerable resident when considering compensation, and failed to signpost the resident to its liability insurer. Its approach fell well short of both its own policies and the requirements of the Code.
  9. In conclusion we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the radiator leak and request for compensation. As a result, we have ordered the landlord to take specific actions to resolve the issue and to pay the resident an additional £200 in compensation.
  10. This amount reflects the likely distress and inconvenience the resident experienced and is consistent with the landlord’s own 2025 compensation policy, which states that awards should consider the extent, severity, and impact of the failure. It also aligns with our remedies guidance for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord LL has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy in use at the time of the complaint set out a 2-stage process. It required acknowledgement of complaints within 3 working days, a stage 1 complaint response within 14 days, and a stage 2 complaint response within 28 days.
  2. The landlord has now updated its complaint policy bringing it in line with the Code response timeframe of 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2 of the complaint’s process. The Code requires landlords to ensure complaints are logged promptly, responded to within published timescales, and that remedies are clearly explained, proportionate, and tailored to the resident’s circumstances. The Code also emphasises that complaint handling should be used to resolve issues and put things right, not simply to restate policy.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint on 5 July 2023 about the leak, the damage to his flooring, and the landlord’s handling of the matter. The landlord did not acknowledge this until 22 August 2023, which was 45 days late against the 3-day requirement. This was a failing and not in line with the Code or the landlord’s complaints policy.
  4. The landlord then failed to issue any stage 1 complaint response. Internal records confirm it treated the matter as a councillor enquiry rather than logging and responding under the formal complaints process. This was contrary to its own policy and the Code. The omission of a stage 1 complaint response deprived the resident of an early opportunity to have his concerns properly addressed.
  5. The resident requested escalation on 7 September 2023 stating there was “no resolution.” However, the landlord did not log the escalation until 22 December 2023, 106 days later. This was a significant delay that left the resident without clarity or progress for more than 3 months. This delay was compounded by the resident having to chase the matter repeatedly during this period.
  6. The landlord eventually issued its stage 2 complaint response on 1 February 2024. Measured from the formal stage 2 logging on 22 December 2023 this was 13 days late against the 28-day target. Measured from the resident’s original escalation request on 7 September 2023, the response was almost 5 months overdue. Either way, the landlord’s handling was significantly outside the required timeframe.
  7. The content of the stage 2 response was also inadequate. It did not acknowledge the substantial delays in complaint handling itself.
  8. This approach did not meet the requirements of the Complaint Handling Code, which stresses that remedies must be clearly explained, proportionate to the impact, and followed through to completion.
  9. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint on time, did not issue a stage 1 complaint response, delayed logging the stage 2 escalation request by over 3 months, and issued its stage 2 complaint response outside the required timeframe. Importantly, the landlord did not use its complaints process as an opportunity to resolve the resident’s concerns or put things right, contrary to the requirements of the Code.
  10. These failings caused the resident to incur time and trouble. In recognition of this, we have ordered the landlord to pay £150 in compensation. This amount reflects the cumulative impact of its poor complaint handling, failure to follow procedures, and the time and trouble caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme:
    1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a radiator pipework leak and request for compensation for damages resulting from the leaks.
    2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must complete the following orders and provide evidence of compliance to us:
  2. A senior member of the landlord’s staff must apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies (available on our website).
  3. The landlord must provide the resident with its liability insurer’s details and confirm what assistance it can provide the resident in making a claim.
  4. Complete an inspection of the resident’s flooring and walls. Confirm to the resident and us what outstanding repairs, if any, it is responsible for and provide a schedule of works.
  5. Pay the resident total compensation of £400 broken down as follows:
    1. £200 for any likely distress and inconvenience caused by its failures identified in relation to its handling of his reports of leaks from the pipework and compensation requests.
    2. £150 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its complaint handling.
    3. The previous £50 offered in relation to the Right to Repair scheme (if not already paid).
    4. This compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears where they exist.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord should review its complaint handling procedures to ensure compliance with the Code. It should implement a system to monitor complaint response times and escalate overdue cases promptly. Staff should receive training on handling complaints involving vulnerable residents, with a focus on empathy, accountability, and resolution.