Norwich City Council (202402008)

Decision
Case ID	202402008
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Norwich City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	31 October 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2 bedroomed ground floor flat. The landlord has said that it did not have any vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its systems. When the resident raised her complaint, she told the landlord that her mental health was deteriorating.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1. Delays to it starting major repair works to the block of flats she lives in.
   2. Repair issues and safety in the block of flats that she lives in.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about delays to it starting major repair works to the block of flats she lives in.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about repair issues and safety in the block of flats that she lives in.
6. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Major repair works

7. The landlord did not provide the resident with an explanation as to why its major repair works were delayed, or why its costs had increased. This caused the resident inconvenience.

Repair issues and safety

8. The landlord did not follow its statutory obligations to complete its repairs within a reasonable timeframe. It did not consider the resident’s concerns that the issues were impacting on her vulnerabilities and its communication with her was poor which caused her inconvenience.

Complaint handling

9. The landlord’s complaint handling was confused. Its responses did not consider all the issues that she had raised with it, and it failed to meet all of its timescales for acknowledging and/or responding to the resident’s complaint.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order   The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It explains to the resident why its major repair works were delayed, why its expected costs increased and a clear timeline for its repair works, if it has not already completed them. Provide the resident with details of the outcome of its investigation into her concerns about the lack of maintenance at her block of flats. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 28 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £650 made up as follows: £200 for its failure in its response to the resident’s concerns about delays to it starting major repair works to the block of flats she lives in. £250 for its failure in its response to the resident’s concerns about repair issues and safety in the block of flats she lives in. £150 for its complaint handling failures.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 28 November 2025
3	Inspection order   The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed.   What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the condition of the communal areas at the block of flats and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: The most likely cause of the repair issues that the resident raised. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. The landlord must confirm whether the repair works will require a Section 20 consultation or not.	No later than 28 November 2025

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord arranges complaint handling training for its staff to ensure that its complaint policy is followed.
It is recommended that the landlord considers providing training for its homeownership team using available leasehold best practice from published sources such as Tenant Participation Advisory Service (TPAS).

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 November 2023	The resident raised her complaint with the landlord. She said: There had been damage to her vehicle as a result of the landlord closing the car park at her block of flats. There were outstanding repairs to the communal porch at her block of flats. There was damp in her property due to outstanding repairs to the roof. There was a lack of maintenance of the communal garden and windows.
16 November 2023	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response (for the purposes of this investigation this will be referred to as complaint A). It said: It had closed the communal car park while it completed repair works to install a disabled ramp. It apologised for the inconvenience this had caused her. As her complaint related to a number of its services, it would need further time to investigate this. It would contact her once it had completed its investigation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted this Service on 15 April 2024, as she was unhappy that the landlord had acted following her complaint. We advised her to ask the landlord to escalate her complaint, which she did. She said: It had not acted to resolve the concerns she raised in complaint A. The roof at her block of flats was leaking and the porch was dilapidated. This had caused residents of the block distress. There were mushrooms growing on the walls of the stairwell, because it was damp from rainwater flooding the area. Water was running over the main electric cables when it rained. Residents had to keep the communal door open after someone had become trapped inside. The repair issues were affecting her physical and mental health. Roofing repair works had not started, despite the landlord saying this would begin in November 2023. It had not communicated the delay to her.
24 May 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response (for the purposes of this investigation this will be referred to as complaint B). It said: It apologised for its delay in sending her its stage 1 response. It had consulted its asset management team for an update about the condition of the communal porch. It had held meetings with, and was awaiting samples of materials to present to, its conservation and planning officers about its refurbishment of porches. It would then begin Section 20 consultation with its leaseholders. It apologised for the frustration, inconvenience, and distress the ongoing matter and delays had caused her. It understood its response was not ideal, but it would ensure the remaining steps to the porch works were completed promptly.
16 August 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response to complaint B. It said: It did not escalate complaint A as she did not ask it to do so within the 15 working days timeframe of its complaint’s policy, However, it acknowledged it stage 1 response to complaint A did not inform her of this. It had reviewed the documentation on its system and what it had sent her. Its position on porches had not changed. Its planning and conservation officers were supportive of its approach to repairs of communal porches. It had engaged with specialist contractors who could reconstruct her communal porch. It would conduct general repairs to the porch once it had procured a contractor for this. It was monitoring its repairs progress and would provide weekly updates to councillors. It had tried to arrange a meeting with her to discuss the issues in her block of flats but had been unable to contact her. It apologised for its administrative errors and the delay and dissatisfaction it had caused.
16 September 2024	The resident contacted this Service. She said: The landlord had not provided her with weekly updates on its repair work as it had promised. It had told her that its meeting with her would take place at her front door, rather than its offices. She had prepared her property for it to begin major repair works in November 2023, but this didn’t happen. She had put money aside for repairs that it had said would cost £4,000, but this had since increased by more than £2,000. She was very unhappy that the landlord’s costs for its repair works had increased. We recommended that the resident raise a new complaint with her landlord about the issues that were not related to her previous complaint.

 

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.

Complaint	Handling of major repair works
Finding	Maladministration

10. When a landlord expects repair works to cost more than £250 per leaseholder, it must conduct a 3-stage consultation process about the work under section 20 (S20) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Residents are allowed to make observations to the landlord at each stage of the process.
11. For context purposes only, the landlord’s records show it began S20 consultation with the resident on 30 July 2019 when it told her it intended to complete major repair work to the roof at her block of flats.
12. The landlord originally sent the resident its third S20 letter on 12 July 2023 when it told her it had awarded the contract for the repair works. There is no statutory time limit for completing S20 consultation. However, given the time that had passed and potential changes to costs etc. it would have been reasonable for it to have explained its position regarding the time it took to complete the process and whether it was still correct. It is not evident it did this.
13. When the resident raised complaint A, she reported that her property was damp due to outstanding repairs to the blocks roof and there were outstanding repairs to the communal porch. As the landlord had told her it had concluded its S20 consultation, it would have been reasonable for her to expect it to act on her report. However, despite its stage 1 (A) response telling her it needed to investigate this further, there is no record that it contacted her as it had promised. This was not reasonable and inconvenienced the resident as she had to chase it for answers.
14. Having not received a response from the landlord the resident raised complaint B with it. She told it that the “situation was dire” and the leaking roof and “dilapidated” porch was causing her distress. Although the landlord’s evidence shows it took steps to temporarily repair the porch, there is no record that it acted to investigate the issue with the roof that the resident had reported. This was not reasonable and is likely to have caused the resident confusion.
15. The landlord’s stage 1 (B) response indicates that the repair to the porch would require a separate S20 consultation with leaseholders. The previous S20 scope of works did not either specifically include or exclude the porch, which would have caused confusion for the resident. Its previous S20, therefore, was a missed opportunity to set expectations, and could have potentially avoided the resident having to raise the porch issue separately at a later date.
16. The landlord sent the resident a revised third stage S20 consultation letter on 25 June 2024. It told her that it needed to do this due to increased costs. Although there is no evidence that the resident made any observations about this to the landlord, it knew of her frustrations about it not beginning its major repair work. While it was appropriate to note the cost changes, there is no record that it communicated to her why it had not begun its major repairs soon after it had originally completed S20 consultation in July 2023. This was unreasonable.
17. Neither of the landlord’s complaint B responses to the resident considered the issue of the roof leak. It had been 13 months since it first completed S20 consultation and it knew of the resident’s concerns about its delay in beginning its major repair works. However, there is no record that it gave her an update on progress of major repairs to the roof, or if it has now completed the repairs. This was unreasonable. Its failure to do this caused the resident further inconvenience, as she raised a further complaint with it on 16 September 2024 about the issue.
18. The landlord’s complaint responses did not offer the resident a remedy for the issue she raised with it, nor did it tell her when it would begin its major repair works to the roof. As such, we have ordered the landlord to increase the compensation it offered the resident to recognise the continued distress and inconvenience after its stage 2 response. With consideration to all the circumstances and the failings identified in this report, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £200 compensation for her distress and inconvenience. This is in line with our remedies guidance and recognises the landlord’s failings had an adverse impact on the resident.
19. We have also ordered the landlord to inspect the condition of the communal areas at the block of flats, provide the resident with a scope of works and advise her if any repair works it identifies will require further S20 consultation. We have also recommended that it considers providing its homeownership team with training using available leasehold best practice.

Complaint	Repairs and safety in the block of flats
Finding	Maladministration

20. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of its repair’s policy. However, Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must carry out certain repairs. This places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
21. The resident’s lease says the landlord has an obligation to keep in repair the structure and exterior of her building.
22. The landlord’s records show that it had concerns about the communal door at the resident’s block of flats in June 2022, when it identified that it was “beyond economical repair.” Its evidence shows that it completed repairs to the communal porch door on 9 November, 27 November 2023, 8 February and 28 February 2024. It is unclear why it continued to repair the door, only to again conclude that the door was in a poor condition and it needed replacing. However, there is no record that it replaced the door which is a concern. This was not reasonable and a failure by it to follow its statutory obligation and its own findings. There is also no record that it ever explained its position to the resident, which was not reasonable.
23. The landlord attended a repair to the communal door on the 17 April 2024. Its records show that it had concerns about fire safety and security at the block of flats. Although it attended the repair within a reasonable timeframe, its records show that it did not carry out any repair works, as it needed a supervisor to confirm if a replacement door was needed. There is no record that the landlord took any further action until it raised a temporary door repair on 23 May 2024. Its records show it completed its temporary door repair on 29 May 2024. However, this was 30 working days after the resident reported the issue. This was a failure by it to follow its statutory obligations, which was not reasonable given its own concerns about fire safety and security.
24. When the resident raised complaint A, she said there was a lack of maintenance from the landlord to communal areas at her block of flats. It told her that it would contact her once it had investigated these issues further. However, there is no record that it did this. This was not reasonable and inconvenienced her as she had to chase it for answers.
25. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 April 2024. She was unhappy that it had not acted after she had raised her complaint in November 2023 and said:
    1. The communal stairwell flooded when it rained, which had caused damp and mushrooms to form on the internal walls. She said that this was affecting a neighbour’s health.
    2. Rainwater was running down electrical cables.
    3. The communal porch door was damaged. Residents had been stuck in the building due to this and had wedged the door open, so it didn’t happen again.
26. The resident told the landlord that the repair issues were causing her mental health to deteriorate. However, there is no record that it sought to obtain further information about this or offered her any support and assistance. This was not reasonable.
27. When the resident contacted the landlord on 15 April 2024, she made it clear that part of her complaint included damp and mushroom’s growing in the communal stairwell along with water running down electrical cables.  However, there is no record in the landlord’s evidence that it investigated the resident’s reports about these issues. This was not reasonable given the potential seriousness of the matters she raised and a failure by it to follow its statutory obligations.
28. The resident would have expected the landlord to have acted to resolve the repair issues she reported. However, there is no record that it fully completed all of the repairs she reported. This was not reasonable and a failure by it to follow the terms of her lease. Its communication with her was poor, which is evident in its failure to inform her of its position on repairs to the communal door. These failures adversely affected the resident as she had to chase it for answers which is likely to have caused her distress and confusion.
29. With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for failures that adversely affected the resident, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay her £250 compensation in recognition of the impact of its failings in its response to her concerns about repair issues and safety in the block of flats

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

30. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days at both stages. It will provide a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. A request to escalate a complaint must be made within 15 working days from receipt of its stage 1 response.
31. There is no record in the landlord’s evidence that it provided the resident acknowledgement of complaint A or B. This was a complaint handling failure.
32. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint (A) response to the resident within its published timeframe, which was reasonable. However, it did not advise her that she had 15 working days to escalate her complaint. Although its stage 2 (B) response apologised for this, it was still a complaint handling failure.
33. When the resident contacted the landlord on 15 April 2024, the evidence shows she thought she was still able to escalate her complaint. There is no record that the landlord told her that it would deal with this as a new complaint. This was not reasonable and caused the resident confusion as she was expecting it to provide her with its stage 2 response. As it did not explain the reasons for the delay to the resident and the issues she raised still remained, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered using its discretion to have investigated her concerns at stage 2 of its complaints process.
34. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint (A) response considered the closure of the car park that the resident raised. It provided her with an explanation for this and apologised for the inconvenience it caused her, which was reasonable. However, its evidence indicates there was a lack of ownership by it with the complaint. There is no record that it contacted her again as it agreed, to inform her of its investigation into the other issues she raised. This inconvenienced the resident and caused her to raise complaint B.
35. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint (B) response was 18 working days over its published timeframe. It did not provide the resident an explanation or an apology for this delay. This was not reasonable and a complaint handling failure. It is unclear when the resident escalated complaint (B). However, after she contacted this Service, we gave the landlord a timeframe to provide its response to her, which it did. This was reasonable.
36. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint (B) response was of a poor standard. We would not normally comment on typing errors, but in this case its response had several grammatical errors. For example, it says “to investigate and review your complaint I have, please accept my sincere apology.” This suggests it was rushed or there was a lack of care.
37. Neither of the landlord’s complaint (B) responses or its stage 1 (A) response said if it had upheld the resident’s complaint or not. This was not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and a complaint handling failure.
38. The landlord stage 1 (B) response only considered the repairs to the porch. It did not provide the resident with answers to the other repair issues that she had raised with it. This was a complaint handling failure that inconvenienced the resident.
39. The landlord’s stage 2 (B) response said that it had noted general repair issues at her block of flats that would be part of future repair works. It also said it was monitoring the progress of its repair work at her block of flats. However, it did not provide her with a timeframe for its future repair works or explain what repairs it was monitoring. This was unreasonable. Its responses did not provide the resident with a remedy for the repair issues that she had raised. Had the landlord provided the resident with details of what action it would take, it may have been able to resolve them with her at an earlier stage. As it did not do this, it inconvenienced her and led to her raising a further complaint with it. This was a complaint handling failure.
40. With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for failures that adversely affected the resident, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay her £150 compensation in recognition of the impact of its failings in its complaint handling. We have also recommended that it arranges complaint handling training for its staff.

Learning

Communication

41. The landlord’s communication with the resident was lacking. There is no record that it:
    1. Contacted her outside of its complaint responses, to provide her with updates on the progress of the repairs she reported.
    2. Explained its delay in repairing the communal block door, or its reasons for only completing a temporary repair to it.