Norwich City Council (202416233)

Background

1. The resident lives in supported accommodation. She raised a complaint about various repairs and replacements in her property that she wanted the landlord to carry out.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs.
5. We found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord acted reasonably in its responses, consistently clarifying what items were the resident’s responsibility in line with its policies.
   2. It acknowledged delays in some repairs, but these did not impact the overall outcome or cause the resident detriment.
   3. The landlord explained why it had not replaced the wet room and set clear expectations with the resident. It also offered support and clear signposting for service requests. It took resolution‑focused steps, including visits, practical support, and further inspections.
   4. The landlord’s complaint responses were sent within the appropriate timeframes but failed to acknowledge one of the items raised at both stages. Although it took proactive steps in person and through visits, it should have addressed all matters in writing.

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.

7. The resident raised multiple concerns in her complaint, some of which she felt were ongoing for several years. Our investigation focuses on the period from July 2023 (around 12 months before the complaint) to the end of the complaints procedure in August 2024, when the landlord reviewed its stage 1 and 2 responses. This timeframe reflects events prior to the complaint and means the landlord had fair opportunity to respond to the specific concerns raised during that time. We have considered each aspect of the resident’s complaint below.
8. The landlord’s repairs handbook states it will complete routine repairs within 60 working days. It says residents are responsible for decorating their own home. It confirms residents are responsible for general upkeep and minor repairs inside the home and any damage caused by themselves or visitors.
9. The resident reported damaged bedroom tiles in January 2024. This would be a routine repair, but the completion date for this work was 8 months later. This is outside of the 60 working day response time. We have seen evidence that the contractor attempted to contact the resident to arrange appointments, although it is unclear how many attempts it made. The delay did not affect the overall outcome as the landlord confirmed the issue was aesthetic. The landlord’s attempts to arrange access and the low‑impact nature of the issue were significant mitigating factors, and the delay did not materially affect the resident.
10. When the resident made her complaint in May 2024, she asked for the replacement of stained tiles under the bedroom window, the kitchen sink, and a radiator. She said the bedroom needed decorating and a new carpet. She later referenced that this was due to her daughter having lived in that room who smoked, and it had now become nicotine stained. She advised she had been waiting for a wet room upgrade and draughtproofing her front and back doors. She said there was an access gate that swelled in the rain and was hard to open and asked the landlord to remove a green metal gate that she believed was unused.
11. The landlord’s stage 1 response in June 2024 appropriately said the stained tiling and radiator along with the decoration and carpet were the resident’s responsibility. It confirmed it had previously advised her it would not be carrying out any work regarding these issues. This was a reasonable response and in line with its repairs handbook. The landlord has no responsibility for floor coverings outside of kitchens and bathrooms under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord had already inspected the radiator in January 2024, so this was a reasonable response and evidence based.
12. The landlord advised that the resident had previously been on the list for a new wet room but refused access for essential surveys so removed her from the list. It said it had put her back on the list now but would need to remove her again if she did not provide access. Reinstating the resident on the list while setting clear expectations about access requirements was reasonable and consistent with its repairs policy.
13. The landlord later clarified that the lack of access and communication had amounted to a refusal of the wet room. It again confirmed the upgrade would go ahead but that she would need to provide access to prevent removal from the list. It has since completed the wet room replacement in line with its policy. This was an appropriate response and set reasonable expectations. The landlord follow up on these actions shortly after the end of the complaints process. The resident apparently raised concerns about the quality of works but this was subject to a later complaint that has not been escalated to us (and we have no evidence that it has completed the landlord’s complaints process).
14. The landlord advised the resident that some of her concerns were service requests. It referenced the draughtproofing as an example of this and signposted her to the relevant team to raise repairs. Although there was a report raised in 2023 to inspect the door seals, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider this new May 2024 report as a service request given the lapse in time since the initial report. The landlord repaired the door seals in July 2024, which was timely and appropriate. Although it noted a “delay” in dealing with the doors, without giving detail of this, the resident confirmed the doors did not require replacement, meaning any delay had no adverse impact. The landlord’s actions were proportionate and resolved issues promptly once raised.
15. The landlord’s July 2024 stage 2 response clarified that her front door required replacement and this was followed up. However, the resident subsequently confirmed draughtproofing had fixed the problem and she did not require a replacement door. It was positive that the landlord clarified its position and offered works beyond what the resident had requested.
16. Regarding the resident’s concerns about gates, the landlord booked a survey for the communal gate and said it would complete repairs as needed. This was a reasonable response. It did not acknowledge the earlier January 2024 report, although notes indicate the repair was already completed, suggesting overlapping reports for a communal issue. While this raises a concern about record‑keeping, there was no detriment to the resident and the landlord’s subsequent actions were appropriate. The landlord’s choice to re-direct the green gate action to the customer contact team was reasonable given the absence of evidence of prior requests.
17. Later in the timeline, the landlord appropriately reiterated what items were the resident’s responsibility. This was a reasonable response that set clear expectations. Though it could have taken the opportunity to signpost to any available help with decorations and carpets when she raised affordability concerns, this was still an appropriate response in line with its landlord obligations. It maintained a consistent approach on what repairs it was not responsible for.
18. It was reasonable for the landlord to subsequently confirm that the complaints procedure should not be used to raise service requests and it signposted the resident to its contact team. It also stated that housing officers would be in contact to offer further support with her enquiries. This was an appropriate and resolution focused response. It recognised a potential need for additional support within its communications and acted on this.
19. Although the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about her kitchen sink in its complaint responses, it visited the resident in August and October 2024. It made multiple offers to clean this for her. The landlord’s approach was resolution focused. It considered the resident’s concerns and went beyond its obligations to provide a practical and empathetic response. Following these visits, the resident confirmed she had now cleaned the bedroom radiator and kitchen sink and they were a lot better. This confirmed the landlord’s approach was reasonable, a replacement was unnecessary and general upkeep was the resident’s responsibility.
20. A further works order was then raised for the bedroom tiles in October 2024 which the landlord attended within the appropriate timeframe. The job notes state that the tile had dropped but was not loose. An inspection visit from the landlord also took place in October 2024. This was a positive step in addressing the resident’s issues and confirming whether the problem was damage or aesthetic.
21. The landlord reasonably clarified that stained tiles and radiators, decorations, and carpets were the resident’s responsibility. The landlord handled the wet room issue appropriately, with clear expectations and completion of works within policy timescales. The landlord also reasonably established the draughtproofing and gate reports as service requests.
22. Overall, the landlord acted reasonably in handling the resident’s concerns. It consistently applied its repairs policy, clarified tenant responsibilities, and completed the wet room upgrade within expected timescales. While there were delays and some record-keeping issues, these did not materially affect the service provided and did not cause detriment to the resident. The landlord also demonstrated a resolution-focused approach by visiting the resident, offering practical assistance, and signposting to appropriate teams. On this basis, we make a finding of no maladministration.

23. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s policy is in line with this.
24. The landlord sent its stage 1 and 2 responses within these timeframes. In August 2024, the landlord also wrote to the resident reviewing its earlier responses, confirming that housing officers had visited her to discuss repairs and that it had raised the necessary works. It additionally provided a named point of contact going forward. These steps demonstrate a supportive and reflective approach, consistent with the Code’s expectations on clear communication and taking opportunities to resolve issues outside the formal complaint stages.
25. However, the landlord failed to address the kitchen sink replacement request in its stage 1 and 2 responses. The Code requires responses to address all issues raised. As the resident continued to chase this, there was clearly some detriment and uncertainty caused to her. The impact on the resident was minimal and short‑term as the landlord subsequently visited her in person, discussed the issue, and offered practical assistance by proposing to clean the sink. These actions demonstrate that although there was an omission in the written complaint responses, the landlord took reasonable steps to support the resident practically, which significantly reduced any potential detriment.
26. Overall, it was a service failure that the landlord did not address the kitchen sink issue in its written stage 1 and stage 2 responses. However, this omission had limited impact because the landlord took practical steps to resolve the concern through visits and offers of assistance. These actions significantly mitigated the failing. On this basis, we find a service failure and order the landlord to apologise and confirm in writing the outcome of its investigation regarding the kitchen sink, ensuring final clarity for the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord acknowledged gaps in its record keeping during the complaint investigation, including unclear completion dates and missing notes on repair delays and visits. The landlord has advised that it has since implemented a new housing management system designed to improve the accuracy and accessibility of repair records. This upgrade enhances its ability to track job progress, record outcomes promptly, and provide clearer communication to residents. Going forward, the improved system should reduce delays, prevent missed updates, and support more robust complaint investigations. This is a positive step and shows the landlord’s commitment to improving its service.

Communication

28. While some repair records were incomplete, references within the resident’s correspondence demonstrate that the landlord maintained a consistent and proactive approach to communication throughout the complaint period. It also engaged housing officers to offer additional support, reflecting a partnership-based approach. This shows that, despite gaps in record keeping, the landlord’s communication strategy was robust and resolution-focused, helping to maintain trust and progress issues effectively.