Norwich City Council (202421372)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421372

Norwich City Council

11 September 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:
   1. Handling of remedial works following a leak.
   2. Response to the resident’s reports of damage to personal belongings.

Background

2. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord in a 3-bedroom house. He lives there with his wife. She is disabled and has dementia.
3. On 11 March 2024 the resident reported a leak through the bedroom ceiling. The landlord attended the same day and found that part of the ceiling had collapsed. It renewed the leaking tee to the cold main pipe and removed the soaked insulation from the loft. The ceiling was made safe the next day. On 20 March 2024 the landlord replaced and reskimmed the ceiling.
4. On 16 July 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. He was unhappy that the landlord’s insurers rejected his claim for damaged belongings. He said the plumber told him the leak had been ongoing for some time, but this was not included in the insurance correspondence. He also said that a landlord staff member told him he could claim for a new carpet as the leak had damaged the old one. The resident believed the pipe in the loft was previously damaged when the landlord installed the loft insulation.
5. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 30 July 2024. It explained that the tenancy agreement recommends that residents should have contents insurance. It said it provided its insurers with a repair history, and they decided whether to pay claims independently. It apologised if the resident was told the claim would be approved.
6. On 5 August 2024 the resident asked to escalate the complaint. He was unhappy that his personal belongings had been damaged and reiterated that a landlord staff member had told him he could claim for these from the landlord. He also said he was unhappy with the decorating work. He said he had to redo it himself, and the landlord had not checked whether the repairs had been completed properly.
7. On 27 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It explained the actions it had taken in response to the March 2024 leak and said it did not carry out redecoration, as this was the resident’s responsibility. It repeated its position on insurance claims and told the resident how to appeal the decision.
8. In his referral to this Service, the resident said the landlord should have checked the repair work after completion. He was frustrated that the landlord had told him he could claim for damaged belongings. He also said it took the landlord 16 months to put the loft insulation right, which caused inconvenience. He claimed the bedroom redecoration was poor and that he had to pay to redo it himself.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident felt that the landlord was responsible for damage to his personal belongings because he believed the leak was caused by poor pipework installation. In this case, we are unable to determine the cause or extent of damage to the resident’s possessions. This would be better suited to an insurance claim or a court.
10. The resident submitted a claim for damage to his personal belongings through the landlord’s insurer, but they declined this. We cannot assess how insurers handle or decide claims. This falls under the Financial Ombudsman Service. However, we can assess whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was fair and reasonable.

Handling of remedial works following a leak

11. After the resident reported a leak, the landlord acted promptly. It made the ceiling safe the next day, in line with its emergency repair timescales. The landlord replaced and reskimmed the ceiling 9 days later, on 20 March 2024.
12. The landlord’s repair records show some communication issues. The resident believed the bedroom ceiling work would take place on 14 March 2024. Its records showed that the bedroom was safe to use after an asbestos check on 12 March 2024, however, it is unclear whether the landlord made the resident aware of this. Nevertheless, it completed the ceiling repairs within a reasonable time. The records also showed the resident’s wife was not at the property for much of this time and that the work was completed by the time she returned. This was fair.
13. When the landlord first attended on 11 March 2024 it found a leaking tee to the cold main which had soaked the loft insulation. It noted this needed to be removed. It is unclear if the insulation was removed at that time, but the resident said that it took the landlord 16 months to put the loft insulation right.
14. The landlord’s records showed it did not schedule the replacement of the loft insulation until January 2025, around 10 months later. This was an unreasonable and far beyond the landlord’s 60-day routine repair timescales. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, who was left with a poorly insulated loft during winter. The effect was worse because of the household circumstances.
15. In his escalation request and referral to us, he said he was unhappy with the landlord’s redecorating of the ceiling and redid the work himself. It is unclear exactly what redecoration the landlord did. Nevertheless, the landlord met its obligations by making the ceiling safe, repairing it, and then reskimming and redecorating it.
16. The resident also said the landlord did not check if repairs were completed properly. While the ceiling repairs appeared safe and there was no evidence of further leaks, it would have been good practice for the landlord to carry out a post-inspection. This would have assured the resident that the repairs were done properly and given him confidence that it had treated the matter seriously. It may have also helped it identify sooner that the loft insulation still needed replacing. As such, we have made a recommendation below.
17. Overall, there was a maladministration in the landlord’s handling of remedial works following a leak. This is because of the long delay in replacing the loft insulation. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests awards from £100 where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident.

Response to the resident’s requests for damage to his personal belongings

18. The resident complained that the landlord’s plumber told him the leak had been going on for some time. He also said a landlord staff member confirmed that he could claim for a new carpet because the leak had damaged the old one. The resident repeated this in his escalation request. He said he was unhappy that this was not mentioned in the insurance correspondence.
19. We have not seen the insurance correspondence. However, the landlord addressed these points in its formal responses. It explained that it provided its insurers with evidence of the repair history. This was reasonable because it is the insurer’s role, not the landlord’s, to decide on claims. The repair history was the key information. While the resident was unhappy that other details, such as staff comments, were not included, the landlord would not be expected to provide these.
20. It also apologised that the resident had been told his insurance claim would be approved. This was appropriate, and the landlord repeated this apology in its final response. This showed it accepted what the resident said and understood his frustration.
21. The landlord’s responses were fair and reasonable. It provided a clear explanation of the evidence it provided to its issuers, and it outlined how the resident could appeal their decision. It was also appropriate for the landlord to refer him to his tenancy agreement regarding contents insurance, particularly as his claim through the landlord’s insurers had been unsuccessful.
22. It was also fair for the landlord to apologise for the misinformation given about his insurance claim. While we recognise this would have caused frustration, it would not have affected the overall outcome. Therefore, the landlord’s apology was satisfactory in putting matters right.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of remedial works following a leak.
24. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to personal belongings.

Order

25. Within the next 4 weeks the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in replacing the insulation in the loft.

Recommendation

26. The landlord should ensure that post-inspections are carried out following significant internal repair works.