Norwich City Council (202319481)

Background

1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since November 2018. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident is registered blind. He has had physical and mental health challenges. The landlord was aware of these at the time of the complaint. In September 2023, the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of communal heating and hot water repairs. He requested weekly compensation for the period without full use of the heating and hot water system. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s responses and brought his complaint to this Service.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of communal heating and hot water system repairs and related compensation.
3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of communal heating and hot water system repairs and related compensation.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of communal heating and hot water system repairs and related compensation.

5. There were avoidable delays in making a permanent repair to the new heating and hot water system. The delay prolonged the time the resident did not have full use of the amenity. This caused avoidable inconvenience for the resident. The landlord failed to apply proportionate compensation for the difficulty and discomfort caused to the resident. The landlord failed to demonstrate due regard for the resident’s vulnerability.

The complaint handling.

6. The landlord failed to record the resident’s initial dissatisfaction as a complaint. Its actions were not in line with its own policies and this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord’s complaint management failures delayed resolution and caused avoidable time and trouble for the resident. The landlord showed no commitment to learning from its acknowledged failings. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate and its capture of the resident’s dissatisfaction as a formal complaint only occurred after the involvement of this Service.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate and why

7. This Service does not typically consider complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure, as is the case with the intermittent heating problems up to June 2022. This investigation considers the reported problems with the new communal heating and hot water system for the period from July 2022 to May 2023.
8. On 16 August 2023, during the landlord’s visit, the resident asked the landlord to pay compensation for burglary damage. This was not included in the initial complaint the resident brought to our Service on 4 September 2023 or in his escalation request on 21 September 2023. This Service has not seen evidence that this issue has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process, so it has not been considered as part of this complaint. The resident can raise this as a formal complaint with the landlord if he is still unhappy with how it handled his compensation claim.
9. The resident raised concerns about the impact on his mental health due to the difficulties he had using the new heating and hot water system problems. We understand those concerns. However, unlike a court, we cannot determine the cause of any health issues or establish liability and award damages. Such matters are usually addressed through legal action or a personal injury claim.

What we found

10. The landlord’s repair policy states it will “aim to attend urgent repairs within 5 working days”. The landlord treated the resident’s reports as urgent repair needs.
11. It is not disputed that between July 2022 and May 2023, the new communal heating and hot water system was both problematic, subject to failure and noisy when the resident used it. He felt he had to turn the heating and hot water system off because it was too noisy. On 11 December 2025, the resident told us that a neighbour had complained to him about the noise when he used his heating and hot water.
12. The resident first reported a loss of heating and hot water on 7 October 2023. The landlord attended three times in October 2022 to restore the heating and hot water and advise the resident on using the new system. Following a period of functionality, on 14 April 2023, the resident reported a loud noise in the pipework when using the system. On 24 April 2023, the resident told the landlord in a telephone conversation that at least three engineers had attended but failed to find the cause of the noise. In total it took 10 months from initial reports of loss of heating to deliver an enduring remedy. The resident had to be available to provide access when the landlord attended to assess the heating system. This caused avoidable inconvenience and time and trouble as he was required to provide access on seven occasions. No evidence has been seen that the landlord considered mitigation measures such as providing temporary heating to reduce the impact on the resident whose vulnerabilities were known to it.
13. In its stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord offered to refund 40 weeks of district heating payments totalling £267.60, and £50 for the impacts. The £50 the landlord offered was not proportionate to the undisputed impacts and is below the level of compensation that this Service would consider to be appropriate.
14. In its final response the landlord did not look beyond the circumstances of this individual complaint or consider whether service improvements could have been made as a result of any learning from it. A finding of Service Failure is therefore determined. The landlord is ordered to pay £150 to compensate the resident to reflect the trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £50.

15. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code states that a resident does not need to use the word “complaint” for their concern to be treated as such. An internal email dated 27 June 2023 noted the resident’s dissatisfaction over not receiving an update on his compensation claim for six weeks. He raised the same concern again on 21 July 2023 and 3 August 2023. The landlord then handled the claim informally in August 2023 during which the resident continued to express dissatisfaction with the outcome. It repeatedly failed to treat the resident’s clearly expressed dissatisfaction as a formal complaint. This was a failing, a missed opportunity for earlier resolution and not in line with its policy and this Services code.
16. The landlord did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint until approaching three months after the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction. It was only after the resident contacted this Service and our subsequent contact with the landlord that the resident’s complaint was entered into its complaints framework.
17. The landlord took five months from the resident’s initial dissatisfaction to issue its final formal response. The resident waited longer than necessary for a response and invested avoidable time, trouble and inconvenience in efforts to progress his complaint.
18. The compensation offered to the resident was not proportionate to the impacts of the delay and time trouble and inconvenience created by the landlord’s complaint management failings. There was also no demonstrable commitment to learning from its failings in its responses. Reasonable redress cannot be determined in such circumstances. Consequently, we find there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. To reflect this, we have ordered the landlord to pay £150 in compensation, in line with our remedies guidance. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer for this element of the complaint.

Learning

19. In this case the landlord took 10 months to complete a permanent repair. It should review how delays impact residents, particularly those with vulnerabilities, and ensure this is adequately reflected in consideration of compensation remedies.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord should ensure all complaint responses are dated, and when appropriate, confirm that vulnerable residents have received communications.
21. This case featured a failure to capture the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint and the landlord should consider and ensure a suitable method is engaged to avoid any reoccurrence of this failing.