Nottingham City Council (202318519)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318519

Nottingham City Council

9 June 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the resident’s roof.
    2. Repairs to the resident’s flooring.
    3. The removal of the resident’s sofa from a communal corridor.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the 17th floor of a high-rise building.
  2. The resident reported floor tiles lifting in the hallway of his property on 31 August 2022. The landlord attended on 4 October 2022 to test the tiles for asbestos. On 19 December 2022, the resident reported water ingress from his living room ceiling. The landlord attended on 23 December 2022 but was unable to gain access to the property.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 January 2023 to raise a formal complaint. He was unhappy that he had received no updates about the outstanding floor tiles repair or the water ingress. He said he felt the landlord had ignored his reports.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 16 January 2023. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised about the delays in completing works. The landlord said it had inspected the water ingress and discovered a leak from the roof area. It advised that it had arranged an appointment to resolve this on 2 February 2023. The landlord also said its contractor would be in touch to arrange the living room floor repair.
  5. The landlord attended on 2 February 2023 and completed a repair to the roof. The landlord was due to attend on 21 April 2023 to complete the repair to the resident’s flooring but, due to an administration error, failed to attend. On this date, the resident had moved his sofa out of the property into a communal corridor to allow for the landlord to complete the repair. The landlord’s caretaker moved the sofa into a bin area, damaging this in the process.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 April 2023 to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He was unhappy that the landlord had failed to attend the appointment and with the repairs delays. He followed this up on 24 April 2023, informing the landlord he was unhappy the caretaker had removed the sofa. He asked for the landlord to add this to his complaint. The landlord sent him out a claim form on the same day. The resident submitted the liability/property claim form on 26 April 2023.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 16 May 2023. It apologised that it had failed to attend the appointment, saying it had assigned the work to the wrong trade colleague. The landlord confirmed that its operatives would be attending on 17 May 2023 to carry out the flooring works. The landlord confirmed that it had completed the roof repair on 2 February 2023 and had since received no further leak reports. It said that its claims team had received the resident’s form seeking compensation for the damaged sofa, and for the loss of income caused by the missed appointment.
  8. The landlord e-mailed the resident on 26 July 2023 to inform him that it would not be awarding compensation for the damaged sofa. The landlord sent a further e-mail on 23 August 2023 confirming it would not be awarding compensation for this.
  9. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 23 August 2023 to ask us to consider his complaint. He was unhappy that the landlord’s actions had left him without a sofa. He also noted that it left him without flooring for a long time, and that there was a delay with the roof repair.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s roof.

  1. The landlord’s repair policy has several different timescales for completing repairs. For emergency repairs, the landlord says it will take no longer than 24 hours to attend. For priority repairs – ‘repairs that may have affect how you use your home or its facilities’ – it says it will typically attend within 7 days but within a maximum of 30 working days from a resident reporting a repair. For planned works, it says it will complete these within a maximum of 90 working days.
  2. In his correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident stated that he first reported water ingress from the roof in October 2022. The earliest available evidence to the Ombudsman is of the landlord raising a job for this repair on 19 December 2022. Given the available evidence, this is the earliest the Ombudsman is able to say that the resident put the landlord on notice about the water ingress to the living room ceiling.
  3. The landlord attempted to visit on 23 December 2022 but was unable to access the resident’s property. The landlord’s repairs policy says that, in these circumstances, it will leave a card explaining what a resident needs to do and its operative will take a photo of the resident’s front door showing the time and date they attended. The landlord’s records do not confirm if it followed the steps set out in its repairs policy. This was a shortcoming although there is no indication that it caused an unreasonable delay. The landlord should consider the information it keeps about appointments in order to demonstrate how it has fulfilled the steps it sets out in its repairs policy.
  4. The resident re-raised the issue with the landlord on 11 January 2023 and it inspected the following day. It completed the roof repair on 2 February 2023. The landlord’s contractor applied a coating to the roof. Since the landlord completed the repair, there is no evidence the resident reported further issues or water ingress.
  5. From the resident first reporting the water ingress on 19 December 2022 to the completed repair on 2 February 2023, it took the landlord 30 working days to stop the water ingress. This was in line with the timescales specified for priority repairs in the landlord’s repairs policy.
  6. The landlord also followed up after it had completed the repair to undertake a damp and mould treatment to the ceilings which the water ingress had affected. It did so on 8 March 2023. This was 24 working days after it had stopped the water ingress. This timescale again was reasonable for the landlord to complete the remedial works in.
  7. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s roof. It completed the necessary repair works within the timescales specified in its repairs policy as well as completing the necessary follow-up remedial works in a reasonable timeframe.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s flooring

  1. The landlord first raised a job for a repair to the resident’s flooring on 31 August 2022. The order raised by the landlord said that hallway floor tiles were cracking and flaking. The landlord’s initial description of this job also mentioned the possibility of asbestos. The landlord’s subsequent records from 24 March 2023 indicated more of the flooring in the property required repair, including in the bathroom and lounge.  
  2. By the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 16 May 2023, it had still not fully completed the repair to the resident’s flooring. This was over 8 months since the landlord first logged the job. The landlord’s submission to the Ombudsman shows that it completed these works on 17 May 2023.
  3. The landlord’s records do not have any detail of a 17 May 2023 appointment. There is mention of the landlord’s contractor keeping an appointment on 7 July 2023 in relation to this job. However, it is unclear what this appointment was for or if this is simply the completion date the landlord noted on its records. Regardless of the correct completion date, there were unnecessary delays in conducting the repairs.
  4. The landlord’s records demonstrate it missed 2 repair appointments in relation to the flooring. These records state that its contractors ‘failed’ the appointments on 21 April 2023 and 2 May 2023. The landlord’s contractor did not attend the 21 April 2023 appointment as it assigned the work to the wrong contractor. This resulted in the missed appointment. The landlord’s records do not provide further information on the 2 May 2023 appointment. It is therefore unclear if the landlord failed to attend on this date, or if it cancelled this prior to attendance.
  5. There is evidence that the missed appointment on 21 April 2023 caused the resident time and trouble as he chased the landlord for updates. He also had to take time off work to accommodate the appointment and to move his furniture. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it informed the resident about its inability to attend on either occasion. The landlord’s lack of communication with the resident represents service failure.
  6. Notes from the landlord’s contractors indicate that when the landlord first logged the job on 31 August 2022, they suspected there could be asbestos present. This delayed the landlord’s progress by a month as it needed to first inspect. This took place on 4 October 2022. This initial month-long period whilst the landlord undertook the asbestos-related checks was unavoidable and there was no service failure in this regard. Following these checks, the landlord would have been in the position to progress the repair.
  7. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s flooring. It failed to complete the repair in a reasonable timescale, or in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. It also missed 2 appointments. Whilst it recognised this and apologised in its complaint responses, it did not offer the resident compensation to put things right.
  8. The landlord should therefore pay the resident £250 compensation for its failings. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range where there has been a failing which adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the removal of the resident’s sofa from a communal corridor

  1. The landlord’s communal areas policy found on its website states that it will ‘make sure that communal areas under our control are kept clear of items that create an unacceptable fire risk or obstruction, so that users of these facilities are kept safe’. This also says that ‘any items that we remove will be stored by us for a reasonable time before being disposed of’. This allows residents the ability to reclaim items which the landlord may have moved. The landlord’s policy outlines several steps it will take if there is a breach of the policy.
  2. The landlord’s decision to remove the sofa to a location away from a fire door was in line with its policy and was reasonable given it believed the sofa constituted a fire risk. The landlord has said that it made ‘several attempts’ to contact the resident prior to removing the sofa. The landlord has not provided any evidence of this contact or demonstrated the steps it took to discover whose item this was. Given this lack of evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to make a definitive finding on how the landlord fulfilled its obligation to contact the resident prior to moving an item. 
  3. Nevertheless, both the resident and landlord agree that it damaged the sofa whilst moving it. The landlord’s own internal communication from 24 April 2023 stated that the sofa had been ‘damaged in transit, with a rip underneath’. The landlord’s policy puts an obligation on it to store these items once removed. Given this obligation, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to handle and store the items in a manner which would not cause damage to them. The landlord therefore failed to fulfil obligations set out in its communal area policy.
  4. The landlord offered the resident the opportunity to reclaim the sofa on 24 April 2023. The resident was aware, at this time, that the landlord had damaged the sofa whilst moving it and declined the offer. Given the landlord was aware it had caused damage, it would have been reasonable for it to have offered the resident compensation at this time for him to repair or replace the sofa. Its failure to do so was unfair given the circumstances of the case.
  5. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord confirmed that it had received the resident’s claim seeking compensation for the sofa. This was not an insurance claim but instead a claim for compensation handled internally by the landlord. In its subsequent communication with the resident, the landlord stated that it denied that its removal of the sofa was ‘as the result of any negligence’ on its part. It said that it would not therefore offer any compensation.
  6. Whilst the removal of the sofa may not have been a negligent action given the landlord’s concerns about a fire risk, it did cause damage to the resident’s possession. As stated above, the landlord’s own internal communications highlighted that it damaged the sofa, and it was fully aware of this fact. Given this, it was unreasonable that the landlord refused to offer any compensation.
  7. The landlord therefore failed to follow its communal area policy in a reasonable manner. Its own communications demonstrated that it was aware its actions had caused damage. The landlord’s claim decision was made on the basis that it was entitled to remove the sofa. We have found no fault with this decision. However, the actual damage was caused during the move of the sofa and this was the reason for the resident’s claim.
  8. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the removal of the resident’s sofa from a communal corridor. It damaged the sofa in transit and refused to offer compensation on the grounds that it was entitled to move it. The landlord has therefore not treated the resident fairly or reasonably in the circumstances.
  9. For the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings, the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation. This figure is in the range recommended by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a failing which adversely affected the resident. The Ombudsman has also made orders in relation to how it should make good its failure to offer the resident compensation for the damaged item.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s flooring.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s removal of the resident’s sofa from a communal corridor.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord:
    1. Pays the resident £400 compensation, consisting of:
      1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to his flooring;
      2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the removal of his sofa from a communal corridor.
    2. Apologises to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    3. Writes to the resident to request evidence of the cost of his sofa damaged by its caretaker. The landlord must then make an offer of compensation for the damaged belongings in line with its compensation procedure within 8 weeks of the date of this report. If the resident has not provided further evidence, the landlord must make an offer based on the information it already holds. It must provide copies of the relevant letters to the Ombudsman.
    4. Provides evidence to the Ombudsman that is has done so.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider the information it records about appointments. It should be able to provide a full record of each appointment it undertakes and the actions it took at these appointments.