Derby City Council (202316973)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316973

Derby City Council

30 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above, and the associated repairs.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat in a block. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable due to having a mental health condition.
The landlord was attending to a repair in the property above the resident’s on 28 June 2023. While the repair was ongoing the isolation valve leading to the toilet failed causing a leak. The operative in attendance fixed the issue. The notes from the visit indicated it tried to enter the resident’s property to assess any damage but was unable to.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 June 2023 and said there was a leak from the property above that damaged her bed. The landlord attended the resident’s property to inspect the damage caused by the leak. The outcome of the inspection was:
1. It offered to pay for the mattress to be professionally cleaned. It reassured the resident the leak was from the mains water and was “clean”.
2. It raised a repair to a crack in the ceiling and redecorate.
3. To remove the wallpaper in the bathroom and redecorate.
The resident made a complaint on 14 July 2023. She said she was unhappy about the landlord’s response to the matter. She said she was unable to sleep on the mattress since the incident. She provided photos of the mattress in support of her complaint.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 2 August 2023. It said:
1. It explained the cause of the leak and set out its position that it was an “accident” and the issue was not caused by “negligence”.
2. It would complete the repair to the ceiling in October 2023.
3. The redecoration works for the bathroom were booked for 1 September 2023.
4. It had reviewed the photos of the mattress which showed “burn marks and staining” that were no cause by the leak. It restated its offer to clean the mattress and offered advice on how the resident could dry the mattress.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked it top open a stage 2 complaint investigation on 3 August 2023. She said the landlord had not considered the “distress” and impact on her mental health in its stage 1 response.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 31 August 2023. It said:
1. It restated its position that the isolation valve failure was “unforeseeable”.
2. There was existing damage to the mattress. It restated its offer to pay for the mattress to be professionally cleaned.
3. It had also offered to replace the mattress from its ‘furniture pack’ supplier, but the resident had refused. This offer remained open.
4. It restated it would complete the repairs in the bedroom and bathroom.
5. It was aware of her mental health and “this had a bearing on” the offer of money to clean the mattress.

Events after the complaints process

The resident contacted us on 8 September 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was still waiting for the landlord to complete the agreed repairs and wanted it to replace her mattress.
The landlord completed the plastering of the bedroom ceiling on 30 October 2023 and completed the decoration works on 14 November 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 February 2024 and said it had now completed most of the repairs. She said she was still waiting for it strip the wallpaper and decorate the bathroom. The landlord responded the same day and apologised for the delay. It said it would complete the repairs by 22 May 2024.
The landlord completed the bathroom repairs on 30 July 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
The landlord’s website states it aims to complete non-urgent repairs within 5 weeks and non urgent repairs that require specialist material or equipment within 12 weeks. These repairs include plastering.
Throughout her complaint the resident raised a concern the leak from the property above caused damage to her personal possessions. While the serious nature of this claim is noted, it is not our to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. This Service has instead considered the landlord’s response to this concern, and whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures
The evidence shows when the landlord was aware of the leak it sought it inspect the resident’s property the day it happened. This was appropriate. It was unable to gain access and returned to inspect on 10 July 2023 when it was able to agree an appointment with the resident. The evidence shows it tried to inspect on 5 July 2023, but the resident was unavailable. It is clear from the information available, the landlord sought to inspect the resident’s promptly to assess the damage. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
Following its inspection, the landlord raised repairs and offered to pay for the resident’s mattress to be cleaned. This was appropriate in the circumstances. The evidence show the landlord inspected and gave the resident’s request for a new mattress due consideration. Considering the circumstances, its offer to have the mattress cleaned was proportionate.
The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to set out its position on the repairs and when it hoped to complete them. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It also restated its position with regard to the mattress. We note the resident disagreed with its position. The information available shows the landlord communicated its position with clarity and consistency.
The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to restate its position on the repairs and the mattress. It also used the response to offer to replace the resident’s mattress. It is noted the resident refused this offer over concerns the quality of the mattress would not be the same as the damaged mattress. It is not possible for us to determine the accuracy of this claim. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer a replacement matters. This is evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
We welcome the offers the landlord made in regard to the mattress which went some way to putting right the inconvenience the resident experienced. However, it made no offer of compensation for the distress and inconvenience the issue caused the resident. We acknowledge the leak was caused by an unexpected repair issue. But the issue did inconvenience the resident as she had to report repairs and experience the inconvenience of those repairs being completed. It was unreasonable it did not offer compensation for the inconvenience she experienced as a result of the repair issues.
The tone of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, in relation to the resident’s concerns about her mental health, was inappropriate. The resident raised a specific concern about the “distress” the leak had caused and that due to her mental health condition this distress was increased. The tone of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was dismissive of the distress she claimed to experience. We acknowledge it said its offer of compensation for cleaning was made because of this. However, the lack of acknowledgement of her distress was inappropriate.
Our spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights cited the tone of communication with residents was a major factor that impacted on the service the resident received. The report said when the tone of the landlord’s response “dismiss[ed] a resident’s lived experiences” resulted in the resident feeling they had received unfavourable treatment. The evidence indicates the tone of the landlord’s communication created such a situation. We acknowledge the spotlight report was published after the landlord issued its final complaint response. We have included a reference to it here to promote learning for the landlord.
The landlord completed the decoration works in the bedroom in November 2023. This was within the 12 week timeframe it gives for plastering repairs.
The evidence shows the landlord did not complete the redecoration works in the bathroom within its policy timeframes. The resident was inconvenienced by the delay and the need to chase it about the repairs in February 2024. It completed the repairs in July 2024, this was well outside of its policy timeframe. This caused a further inconvenience to the resident. We acknowledge some of the delay was caused by a failed repairs visit. The notes from the landlord’s records indicate the resident “refused access”. We have not been able to corroborate this claim. However, the records show this repair was reraised on 15 May 2024 and was not completed until 30 July 2024. This was an unreasonable delay.
The landlord offered a total of £80 in compensation (to pay for the mattress to be cleaned). Considering the failings identified above we have determined this offer did not fully put things right for the resident. We have decided there was maladministration in its handling of this matter.
Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. The guidance states that findings of maladministration may be made when we identify failures “which adversely affected the resident”. This is depending on the severity of the failing and the impact on the resident. Considering, the failings identified above we have determined an order of a further £200 in compensation is appropriate. This is in addition to the £80 the landlord already offered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above, and the associated repairs.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
2. Pay the resident £280 in compensation is recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above, and the associated repairs. Its offer of £80 in compensation should be deducted from this total if already paid.