Nottingham City Council (202314213)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314213

Nottingham 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:
   1. the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the kitchen as the result of a leak.
   2. repairs to the living room floor.
   3. the resident’s reports of storm damage to her garden.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, which is a 3-bedroom terraced house. The landlord has told us that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident has told us that she is disabled.
4. In March 2023, the resident reported that a leaking overflow pipe was causing damp on an external wall of the property. In the landlord’s repairs records, it has recorded that it completed works to address the leaking pipe on 27 April 2023. The landlord completed a damp survey at the property on 18 May 2023. The report noted damp and mould growth on an external wall, affecting the brickwork, the plasterwork in the kitchen and the kitchen units.
5. On 14 July 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to say that it would not consider her complaint about damage to flooring in the property because it raised issues of policy. The resident then contacted us to ask us to raise a complaint on her behalf. On 21 August 2023, we wrote to the landlord to ask it to respond to the resident’s complaint about its handling of her reports of damp and mould in the property’s kitchen, repairs to the living room floor, and damage to her garden steps caused by a storm.
6. The landlord provided a response at stage 1 of its complaints process on 31 August 2023. It said that it had raised a new repair for the garden steps, as this had not been reported previously. It said that its contractor would resolve the damp and mould works “in the near future,” supervised by the repairs manager. At the same time, it would complete works to the rear garden steps. The landlord said that a hole in the screed of the living room floor was the resident’s responsibility to repair, as it had previously informed her on 5 April 2023 and 17 April 2023.
7. On 4 September 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said the landlord had still not resolved the damp and mould despite multiple repairs visits. She said this was affecting her breathing, that her possessions smelled of damp, and that her washing machine had been damaged. The resident said that the landlord had first said that it would repair the living room floor, then later advised that this was her responsibility. She disputed this, as she said the damage was caused by previous tenants. She also said that the damage was to the structure of the property, and not the floor covering. The resident said the landlord had refused to raise works to 2 storm damaged safety panels in her garden, advising that these were the responsibility of her neighbour. The resident clarified that these were not boundary fence panels, but safety panels situated in her own garden, which the landlord had repaired previously.
8. The landlord logged and acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 5 January 2024. It provided a response at stage 2 of its complaints process on 2 February 2024. The landlord said that it had post-inspected the damp and mould works and could not locate any remaining mould or damp smells. The response included before and after photographs of the damp and mould works. The landlord said the hole in the living room floor was in the top coating, or “screed.” It said that in response to the resident’s concerns, it had arranged for the application of a finish to the entire floor, which it would complete on 12 February 2023.
9. When the resident referred her complaint to us, she told us that there are continuing issues with damp in the property, which the landlord believes are caused by a second, as yet unidentified leak. She said that the landlord completed some works to the living room floor but that it only treated part of the floor and that damaged areas remain visible. The resident said that the landlord had not completed any works to her garden. The resident wants the landlord to identify and resolve the leak, and to complete all outstanding works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident has said that the presence of damp and mould has caused her to experience breathing problems. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. However, we can consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced because of errors by the landlord.
11. The resident has told us that there are ongoing issues with damp and mould at the property, and that the landlord believes there is a second leak that it has not yet been able to trace. The Ombudsman will normally only investigate events up to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response. Any new issues should be raised with the landlord first as a repair request, and if unresolved, as a new complaint. Although we appreciate that the resident feels the landlord has failed to resolve the damp and mould issues, we are unable to investigate a reoccurrence of the problem due to a second leak, as the landlord must first have a chance to respond through its internal complaints process. We understand that the resident has submitted a complaint to the landlord about these issues, and we encourage the landlord to engage with the resident to reach a resolution.

Damp and mould

12. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Service Standards from the time of the complaint say it aims to complete priority repairs, including to minor leaks, within a maximum of 30 working days. In cases of damp and mould, the landlord will attend to inspect within 4 weeks of first contact, and it will complete any required works within 3 months of the initial report.
13. According to the information provided to us, the first repairs relating to the leaking overflow pipe were raised on 15 March 2023. The landlord’s notes say that the tenant received advice at a previous visit to tighten a screw to resolve the leak, but this had not resolved the issue. As the landlord has not kept a record of the previous visit, we are unable to determine when it first became aware of the issue, or to assess whether the landlord responded appropriately. The jobs raised on 15 March 2023 included a job to “assess and repair external wall”. These jobs were marked as completed on 27 April 2023 and 25 September 2023 but there are no notes providing further details of the works carried out on, or between, those dates.
14. We would expect the landlord to take action to resolve the leak within 30 working days of the first report, in line with its policy, and to explain to the resident if there would be a longer timeframe for completing any associated remedial works. In the absence of complete repairs records, we cannot conclude that the landlord met its service standard, or that it adequately communicated with the resident about the repair.
15. The landlord has provided a copy of the damp survey completed on 18 May 2023, which briefly describes the inspector’s findings. It raised works the following day to repoint the brickwork and to make good internal plasterwork. These jobs are marked complete on 31 May 2023 and 26 June 2023. The landlord did act appropriately by completing a damp and mould survey of the property and raising the necessary works. However, it is not clear when the landlord was first made aware that the leak had caused damp and mould within the property, and so we cannot conclude that the landlord met its target inspection timeframe of 4 weeks.
16. The stage 1 complaint response of 31 August 2023 acknowledged that works relating to the damp and mould were outstanding, but the landlord did not provide details or timescales, or comment on what had gone wrong. It committed to complete the works to resolve the complaint, which was appropriate in the circumstances, but its complaint response should also have explained how it had fallen short of its service standards and provided an apology.
17. Works associated with the damp and mould were still outstanding when the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 4 September 2023. It appears that works had been completed by the time the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 2 February 2024, although the resident maintained that a damp smell was still present in the property. We cannot be certain from the landlord’s records when all works associated with the damp and mould were completed, although this appears to be on or around 25 September 2023.
18. The landlord acted appropriately by post-inspecting the works, particularly as the resident raised concerns that damp was still present. We have not been provided with details of when the post-inspection took place, or a report of the inspector’s findings. Again, we cannot conclude that the landlord took reasonable and proportionate action to resolve the ongoing issues with a smell of damp in the property in the absence of that information.
19. The landlord’s stage 2 response explained that, “unplanned, more extensive works, where a repair can’t be carried out, does take longer to complete”. Although the landlord’s repairs policy does distinguish between priority and planned works, there is no evidence that landlord explained the timescales to the resident, or that it provided her with regular updates, which would have been reasonable in the circumstances.
20. The landlord has told us that it holds no further notes of communications with the resident, other than the complaint correspondence. It says that it provided some information to the resident verbally following inspections. The landlord is required to keep detailed and accurate records of all repairs appointments, including inspections. Its failure to do so has affected our ability to investigate the complaint about its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It has therefore been recommended to review its record keeping practices to make sure clear, detailed, and accurate records of all repairs appointments and communications with residents and its contractor are recorded on its systems, in line with our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
21. The landlord’s internal records show that it acknowledged the need to improve its communication with residents about repairs, which demonstrates willingness to learn from the outcome of the complaint. However, it failed to address this in its complaint responses, or to offer the resident appropriate redress. In total, it took the landlord more than 4 months from the date of the damp and mould survey to complete repairs. This is in excess of the 3 months set out in its service standards and does not include the period from when the issue was first reported to the date of the damp and mould survey.
22. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property. The landlord has not provided sufficient information for us to conclude that it took reasonable and appropriate action, in line with the requirements of its policies and procedures. Its communication with the resident was poor and it failed to adequately respond to the complaint by acknowledging its failings and offering appropriate redress.
23. In the circumstances, an award of compensation is appropriate, to recognise the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor communication. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and to pay her £150 to recognise the adverse effect of its poor communication. This amount is within the range set out in our remedies guidance where maladministration has been identified that has had an adverse but not permanent effect on a resident.

Living room floor

24. The landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the property in good repair. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that she is responsible for repairing “any minor plaster cracks and internal decorations.” The tenancy agreement does not refer to responsibility for repairs to flooring or floor coverings. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Service Standards gives “minor floor repairs” as an example of a priority repair that the landlord will complete.
25. In its stage 1 complaint response of 31 August 2023, the landlord repeated previous advice to the resident that it was her responsibility to repair the flooring. We would expect the landlord to refer to the relevant parts of the resident’s tenancy agreement and/or its policies and procedures to explain why it had reached the conclusion that it was not responsible for the repair. The landlord’s repairs policy suggests that it will complete flooring repairs, and while it is common for floor coverings to be considered “internal decorations”, we are not satisfied that the landlord had a reasonable basis for refusing to carry out works to the screed layer of the floor, which arguably forms part of its structure.
26. The landlord did later agree to complete works to the resident’s floor, as described in its stage 2 complaint response of 2 February 2024. This was a reasonable way of attempting to resolve the complaint to the resident’s satisfaction. This approach, which it states was contrary to its policy, shows that it was willing to be flexible in order to maintain the landlord and tenant relationship.
27. The landlord says that it completed works to the resident’s flooring on 5 February 2024. The resident says that at this visit, the landlord did not treat the entire floor as promised. The resident says that the landlord only repaired approximately one fifth of the floor, with cracks and uneven areas still visible elsewhere. The resident has told us that it is essential that she has level flooring in the property, so that she can install wooden flooring, which she finds more manageable as she is disabled. The repairs records provided to us do not evidence that it levelled the entire floor, and so we cannot conclude that the landlord carried out the works it promised to complete in order to resolve the complaint.
28. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damage to the living room floor. Although it did take some steps to provide a satisfactory resolution, it failed initially to explain the basis for its refusal, and it has not evidenced that it completed all works. The landlord is ordered to inspect the living room floor of the property to establish whether the whole floor was treated at the visit on 5 February 2024. If this was not the case, it should arrange to carry out the remaining works within the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
29. The landlord is also ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation, to recognise the stress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of its failings. This amount is within the range set out in our remedies guidance, where the landlord’s service failure has adversely affected a resident.
30. The landlord has told us that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, although its repairs records do refer to her as a vulnerable tenant in some places. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss her vulnerabilities, and any additional needs, and that information about any vulnerabilities is accurately and visibly recorded on its systems.

Garden repairs

31. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that she is responsible for making sure that, “gardens, yards, hedges, fences … at your home are repaired and maintained.” The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Service Standards say that residents are responsible for maintaining “boundaries and fences,” and that the landlord is “only responsible for repairing fencing and gates that we have installed.” The service standards say that the landlord will complete repairs to fences within 15 working days, although it later provides a timescale of 3 months for any approved repairs or replacement works.
32. There are no records showing that the resident reported storm damage in her garden to the landlord before she contacted us. The landlord treated the complaint submitted on 21 August 2023 on the resident’s behalf as the first report of the issue and raised a new repair for the garden steps. Its actions were appropriate in the circumstances in the absence of a previous report.
33. In the resident’s escalation request of 4 September 2023, she said that the landlord had refused to raise a repair for storm damaged panels in the garden, on the basis that they belonged to a neighbour. The resident has described the damaged panels as “safety panels,” to aid safe descent of the steps. She says that the landlord has previously repaired the panels, although we have not seen any evidence of previous repairs. The landlord did not address this aspect of the complaint escalation in its stage 2 complaint response.
34. Although the resident’s tenancy agreement says that she is responsible for garden maintenance, the landlord’s repairs policy suggests that it will carry out repairs to damaged fence panels. We would therefore expect the landlord to complete an inspection to determine whether any works were required, particularly where damage to the panels may have made the area unsafe. Information relating to its investigations and any associated works should have been clearly recorded on its systems but there is no reference to this aspect of the complaint in the landlord’s repairs records.
35. The landlord says that works to the garden step were completed following the stage 2 complaint response, and the job raised on 24 August 2023 is recorded as completed on 7 November 2023. The resident says that the landlord has surveyed the garden, but it has not completed any repairs.
36. Again, the landlord’s failure to keep full and accurate repairs records has hindered out ability to investigate this aspect of the complaint. In the absence of more detailed information, we cannot conclude that the landlord acted appropriately, that it has completed the works it committed to carry out to the garden steps, or that it has considered and responded to the resident’s concerns about damaged garden panels.
37. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of storm damage to her garden. The Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord has done enough to address the resident’s concerns, or to carry out works in accordance with the commitments it made in its complaint responses, and its policies and procedures. The landlord is ordered to arrange for an inspection of the resident’s garden, and to write to her with the outcome of the inspection, detailing any outstanding works it will complete, including works to the garden steps. Its response should set out the timescales in which these works will be completed, in line with its repairs service standards.
38. The landlord is also ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation to recognise the adverse effect on her of its failure to respond appropriately to this aspect of the complaint. The landlord’s lack of clarity, poor record keeping, and poor communication, has caused the resident avoidable stress and inconvenience. This amount falls within the range of compensation recommended in our remedies guidance for cases where a resident has been adversely affected by a landlord’s failure to adhere to its service standards.

Complaints handling

39. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1, it will acknowledge the complaint and provide a written response within 10 working days of when the complaint was received. At stage 2, it will provide a written response within 20 working days of receipt of the escalation request.
40. The landlord initially refused to raise a complaint about its refusal to complete works to resident’s living room floor. Its reason was that the resident was challenging its policy, and that it would not consider challenges to its policies via its complaints process. In our view, the landlord was wrong to refuse to log a complaint about this issue. It would have been appropriate to provide a complaint response setting out the basis on which the works had been refused, with reference to the landlord’s obligations under the tenancy agreement and its policies and procedures. Its refusal to consider the complaint initially left the resident without a remedy for resolving the issue in discussion with the landlord.
41. The landlord says the resident did not request compensation and that its complaint findings did not necessitate an offer of compensation. We disagree and have made orders for compensation in this determination, in line with our remedies guidance. The landlord is reminded to consider whether discretionary compensation payments, or other forms of redress, such as an apology, are appropriate in all complaints, with reference to our remedies guidance and its own policies.
42. The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint at stage 2. The escalation request of 4 September 2023 was not acknowledged until 5 January 2024, with a response provided on 2 February 2023, which was almost 5 months after the resident made the request. The final complaint response did not acknowledge the unreasonable delay, provide an explanation or apology, or offer any form of redress. This was unacceptable.
43. The stage 2 response did not address the resident’s complaint about its response to her reports of storm damage to her garden. The landlord is reminded to review the full complaint history when responding to complaints, to ensure that all aspects of the complaint, including those raised at the escalation stage, are addressed in the response.
44. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. At stage 2, the landlord failed to meet the timescales set out in its Complaints Policy. Its responses did not contain sufficient detail about the failings it had identified or offer appropriate redress in the circumstances. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation, to recognise the time and trouble she had to go to in order to pursue her complaint. This sum aligns with the recommended amounts set out in our remedies guidance, where a resident has been adversely affected by a landlord’s failings.

Determination

45. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
46. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s living room floor.
47. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of storm damage to her garden.
48. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

49. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £550 compensation, made up of:
       1. £150 to recognise the adverse effect on her of its poor communication in relation to her reports of damp and mould.
       2. £100 to recognise the stress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of repairs to her living room floor.
       3. £150 to recognise the stress and inconvenience caused by its failure to respond appropriately to her reports of storm damage to her garden.
       4. £150 to recognise the time and trouble the resident was put to in pursuing her complaint.
    3. Arrange an inspection of the living room floor of the property, to establish whether the whole floor was treated at the visit on 5 February 2024. If this was not the case, it should arrange to carry out the remaining works within the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
    4. Arrange an inspection of the resident’s garden and write to her with the outcome of the inspection, detailing any outstanding works the landlord will complete, including works to the garden steps. Its response should set out the timescales in which these works will be completed, in line with its repairs service standards.

Recommendations

50. It is recommended that the landlord review its record keeping practices to make sure clear, detailed, and accurate records of all repairs appointments and communications with residents and its contractor are recorded on its systems, in line with our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
51. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss her vulnerabilities, and any additional needs, and that information about any vulnerabilities is accurately and visibly recorded on its systems.