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.

Norwich City Council (202329598)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329598

Norwich City Council

31 July 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 leak at her property.
    2. Request for compensation due to damage caused by the leak.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house.
  2. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 1 September 2023. She said that there was a leak at the property that had damaged the flooring. The resident believed the leak was caused by the landlord’s contractor, who had removed a radiator to do plastering work. The resident informed the landlord she wanted compensation to fix the damage caused by the leak.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 12 September 2023. It said:
    1. It had looked into the complaint and spoken to its contractor. It understood the contractor had attended the property on 29 August 2023 to remove the radiator for the plastering works.
    2. The contractor had attended the property on 29 August 2023 to remove the radiator for the plastering works. The contractor had also replaced a leaking lock shield.
    3. The contractor attended the property on 1 September 2023 to refit the radiator and confirmed to the landlord there were no signs of leaks.
    4. The landlord said the resident could report any repairs required and send photos of the damaged flooring.
  4. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 19 September 2023. She said she believed that the lock shields were fitted incorrectly. She said that there were no sign of leaks when the contractor attended because she had been trying to prevent damage by mopping the water up. She provided photographs of the leak and the damage to the flooring.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 12 October 2023. The landlord said it had requested its contractor reattend the property to check the lock shields and determine if they had been fitted incorrectly. The contractor attended on 9 October 2023 and said they were fitted correctly and there was no leak. The landlord said if the resident wanted to claim for compensation, it should contact it online or via the post.
  6. The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 October 2023 to explain that she was unhappy with how the landlord had investigated the matter. The resident said the leak had been resolved once the radiator was refitted on 1 September 2023. She was dissatisfied that the landlord was not progressing her request for compensation as she believed she had already provided it with the necessary information.
  7. The landlord responded to the resident on 31 October 2023. The landlord said it had assessed the resident’s compensation claim and it would not offer compensation. The landlord said this was because its contractor had replaced the lock shield on 29 August 2023 and the contractors did not receive any reports of leaks after this. The landlord said there were no signs of damage to the flooring or a faulty lock shield when the contractor attended on 1 September 2023.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to us on 23 November 2023 as she remained unhappy with the way that the landlord had responded to her complaint. In an email to us on 10 July 2025, the resident has confirmed that she would like the landlord to rectify this issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

  1. Generally, we investigate issues and events up to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response. This is because events that occurred after the date of the final response will not have been addressed via the landlord’s complaint process. However, in this case it is appropriate for us to consider events past the date of the final complaint response which are directly related to the issues raised in the complaint. In this situation, the landlord issued a further complaint response that addressed the resident’s request for compensation on 31 October 2023 which we will consider as part of our investigation.

The resident’s reports of a leak at her property

  1. The landlord’s Repairs and Responsibilities Policy (the policy) says that it is responsible for maintaining and repairing heating installations. The policy gives radiators as an example of this. The policy says that emergency repairs should be completed in 24 hours and urgent repairs should be completed in 5 working days. An emergency repair is described as an issue that would cause danger to life or property or extreme discomfort to the tenant if not attended to. An urgent repair is described as an issue that might affect a resident’s ability to live comfortably in their home.
  2. The resident reported a leak to the landlord’s out of hours emergency response team on 31 August 2023. The landlord did not believe that the repair was an emergency one so told the resident to report the issue to its in hours team the next day, but to let them know if it got worse. The landlord decided the leak was containable but gave the resident the option of calling back if the leak got worse. The landlord made a reasonable assessment as there was no danger to life or property. The landlord acted appropriately in line with its policy.
  3. The resident called the next day to report the leak to the landlord, on 1 September 2023. The landlord contacted its contractor on 4 September 2023. It asked whether the contractor had attended the property since 1 September 2023 to check the leak. The contractor wrote back on 5 September 2023 to confirm that it had attended the property on 1 September 2023. The contractor confirmed there was no sign of a leak and said the tenant had not advised them of any further leaks. The landlord’s actions were appropriate here as it was reasonable to rely on the contractor’s opinion. The contractor had attended the property the same day the resident reported the issue to the landlord. The landlord acted appropriately here as the contractor had attended on the same day the issue was reported. Its check with the contractor took 2 working days. The landlord’s actions were within its timescales for urgent repairs.
  4. The landlord took the resident’s stage 1 escalation of 19 September 2023 as a further report of the leak. It arranged for the contractor to reattend the property. According to its stage 2 response of 12 October 2023, the contractor attended on 9 October 2023 and confirmed that there was no leak. We have not seen evidence of this visit, but it is not disputed by the resident. The resident later confirmed that the leak had been resolved when the radiator was refitted on 1 September 2023. However, it took 14 working days from 19 September 2023 for the contractor to attend what the landlord thought was a leak. The landlord failed to adhere to its policy here.
  5. The landlord’s complaint responses described what actions it had taken to look into the leak. On 12 October 2023 the resident confirmed that the leak was resolved by the radiator being refitted on 1 September 2023. The resident’s stage 1 escalation of 19 September 2023 did not clarify that the leak was resolved and provided evidence of the leak. The landlord assumed the leak was still ongoing because of this so sent its contractor to check the radiator and described its actions in its stage 2 response on 12 October 2023. The landlords approach was reasonable as it had no confirmation the leak was resolved. The landlords complaint responses about the leak were therefore appropriate in the circumstances.
  6. The landlord responded to the resident’s original report of a leak in an appropriate time and in line with its policy. It did not respond in line with its policy to what it understood to be a second report of the leak. However, as the leak was fixed at that point there was no impact on the resident. The landlords complaint responses were appropriate in the circumstances. We therefore find that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak at her property.

The resident’s request for compensation due to damage caused by the leak

  1. The landlord’s Housing Compensation Guide (the guide) says each claim will be judged on its own merit following a full investigation. The guide says the landlord might pay compensation when damage has been caused by a contractor while the contractor is undertaking a repair. The guide is a page on the landlord’s website and the version used was the one present as of the date of this report.
  2. The resident reported the leak to the landlord on 31 August 2023 and 1 September 2023. The landlord’s response to the resident’s compensation claim, sent on 31 October 2023, said its contractor had not received any reports of a leak after 29 August 2023. The landlord also said the contractor had told it that there were no signs of damage to the flooring or a faulty lock shield. We have received no evidence that the contractor informed the landlord that the flooring was not damaged. There is evidence the contractor told the landlord there was no sign of a leak on 5 September 2023. The contractor was responding to the landlord asking if there was a leak in the property. The landlord did not ask about damage. The landlord’s statement in its complaint response about reports of the leak and damage from the leak was incorrect. The leak had been reported after 29 August 2023 and there is no evidence that its contractor commented on the condition of the flooring. The landlord’s response was inappropriate because of the errors contained within it.
  3. The resident first informed the landlord that she believed the contractor had caused damage to the flooring on 1 September 2023, though she has mentioned this more than once to the landlord. The guide says each claim for compensation will be fully investigated and it might pay compensation where damage has been caused by a contractor while the contractor is undertaking a repair. The resident was saying that the contractor had caused a leak that caused damage to the flooring by not installing the lock shields correctly. She supplied photos of the leak and the damages she said had occurred. The landlord has not provided evidence that it considered the photos or considered attending the resident’s property to assess the alleged damage. The landlord’s response was inappropriate and not in line with its guide, as there is no evidence that it investigated the situation fully.
  4. The landlord’s complaint response of 31 October 2023 does not show that a full investigation was carried out in relation to this matter. The landlord did not address the resident saying the contractor had made a mistake which had caused damage at the property. The landlord’s response contained errors on when the leak was reported and what its contractor had told it. We therefore find maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s request for compensation. The landlord should apologise to the resident and pay her £150 compensation, in line with our guidance on remedies. It acknowledges the distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident by the mishandling of the compensation request.
  5. The landlord is also ordered to fully investigate this matter. It should provide a response to the resident which gives a position on whether there was a mistake by the contractor that caused a leak at the resident’s property. It should consider the photographs provided by the resident and should consider attending the resident’s property, if still useful given the time that has passed since the leak. The landlord should then make an assessment as to whether any compensation is payable to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak at her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. Paid the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlords handling of resident’s request for compensation due to damage caused by the leak.
    2. The payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed.
    3. Apologised to the resident for the handling of the resident’s request for compensation.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. Reassessed the resident’s claim for compensation for the damaged flooring. It should fully investigate the matter as per its guide and take into account all available evidence. The landlord should provide a written response to the resident outlining and explaining its decision.