Norwich City Council (202425231)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2 bed house. He asked the landlord to provide temporary accommodation while it completed damp and mould repairs. He raised concerns that he would not be able to use his kitchen and there would be a lot of dust.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Request for temporary accommodation.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the residents request for temporary accommodation.
   2. No maladministration for its complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord acted in line with its policy when it decided not to offer temporary accommodation to the resident.
5. It handled the resident’s complaint appropriately and in line with its policy.

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.

6. The landlord’s temporary housing policy says it will, if possible, carry out repairs and improvements while the tenant and other occupants remain in the home. It says there may be circumstances where this is not possible, for example if the work will be too disruptive or dangerous. In these cases, the tenant and occupants may need to move out temporarily.
7. The repairs carried out in August and September 2024 included replastering the kitchen and the front bedroom and carrying out necessary remedial work. The resident could not fully use these two rooms for 15 days.
8. When we spoke to the resident on 17 February 2026, he confirmed that he did not want us to investigate the landlord’s handling of these repairs. He said this was considered in a disrepair claim he made in July 2024, which the landlord resolved through a settlement offer in February 2025.
9. Although we sympathise with the resident that the repair work caused him distress and inconvenience, it was appropriate for the landlord to carry out the work while he remained in the property. Its decision was in line with its policy. Repairs will always cause some disruption to residents, and in this case, the disruption was not excessive or dangerous.
10. The resident raised concerns that he needed to eat well because of his health issues. The landlord asked him to use his kitchen appliances in other rooms and use water from the bathroom. This was reasonable as it was for a short period. The landlord also showed willingness to review its decision if the resident told it about any additional vulnerabilities.
11. The landlord communicated well with the resident. It offered to visit him to discuss the work and how it would affect him which showed openness and transparency with its decisions. It is unclear if the resident took the landlord up on this offer.
12. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for temporary accommodation. The landlord reasonably refused both the request for temporary accommodation and the resident’s request for rent reimbursement, as there was no evidence that the issues affected the resident’s ability to use the property to a degree that would justify either measure.

13. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days. It should respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. These timescales are in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
14. The resident raised a complaint on 22 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged it within 3 working days. It provided its stage 1 response 3 working days later on 2 September 2024. These actions were within the timescales in its policy.
15. The resident escalated his complaint on 4 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged this within 2 working days and issued its stage 2 response 12 working days later on 24 September 2025. This response was within the timescale in its policy.
16. We find no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. All responses were issued within the appropriate timescales and showed the landlord’s commitment to investigating the complaint and providing a resolution.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord provided adequate records to enable us to assess the issues within the scope of the investigation.

Communication

18. Overall, the landlord was responsive to the resident’s contacts during the complaint process and kept him updated.