Nottingham City Council (202416294)

Decision
Case ID	202416294
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Nottingham City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	25 February 2026 (Updated on 16 September 2026 following review)

Background

1. The property is a 3-bedroom end-of-terrace house that the resident has occupied since 2008. The property previously had solar panels installed on the roof. There was a fire in the property in June 2023 which required the resident to be temporarily rehoused while remedial works were carried out.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A fire at the property and the associated repairs.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a fire at the property and the associated repairs.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

A fire at the property and the associated repairs

4. There were significant failures in record keeping, staff oversight, and communication during a serious incident. The landlord also failed to consider compensation for accepted failures and did not adequately address the concerns raised about staff conduct.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord complied with its complaints policy at both stage 1 and stage 2.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 14 October 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident: £800 for its handling of the fire at the property. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 14 October 2026

 

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 June 2023	A fire broke out in the roof area of the property. The fire service attended, along with the landlord’s emergency response officer. The fire service raised concerns about the safety of the solar panels and the structural integrity of the roof.
16 July 2024	The resident raised a complaint about the length of time it took for the repairs to be completed and the lack of contact from the landlord following the fire. She explained that there was no roof on the property for 8 weeks, which she believed caused further damage. She also stated that she attributed the cause of the fire to faulty batteries connected to the solar panels.
30 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response, outlining the works it stated had already been completed and disagreeing with the resident’s position that further repairs were required. It advised that no outstanding works remained. The landlord partially upheld the complaint.
9 September 2024	The resident later contacted the landlord again about repairs she believed were still outstanding. On 12 September 2024, the landlord contacted the resident and offered to revisit the property to inspect the items it had previously declined to take action on.
9 April 2025	The resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2. She said that she had discussed with the landlord’s surveyor the repairs she believed were still outstanding. She also reported that a member of staff had questioned her about raising a complaint with the Ombudsman and had pressured her to sign a document stating that the works had been completed.
22 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response, confirming that all repairs associated with the fire had been completed. It stated that the items the resident considered outstanding were not related to the fire damage. It also advised that it would address the resident’s concerns about staff behaviour directly with the staff member involved. The landlord partially upheld the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that she remained dissatisfied with the length of time the landlord took to complete the repairs and felt that its communication with her regarding the fire was poor.

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.

Complaint	A fire at the property and the associated repairs
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

6. The resident expressed concerns that the fire may have been caused by faulty solar panels. We do not determine liability for damage or award compensation in the way a court might. Therefore, we are unable to establish responsibility for the fire or the resulting damage, nor can we order compensation for these matters. Instead, we will assess whether the landlord’s investigation into the fire and its subsequent actions were reasonable.

What we did investigate

7. On 11 June 2023 the landlord attended the property following the fire and completed an emergency response incident form. It recorded that the fire originated in the loft and that the fire service had raised concerns about the roof structure and the safety of the solar panels. At that time, the landlord informed the resident that, due to the extent of the fire damage and the concerns raised by the fire service, the property was most likely uninhabitable. This was an appropriate response, as the landlord consulted with the appropriate specialist agency (the fire service) to understand the severity of the situation. This approach aligned with the landlord’s fire safety management policy, which states that it will work with local fire authorities, comply with any advice or notices issued, and seek guidance on the level of risk identified.
8. The landlord asked whether the resident had somewhere to stay, and the resident confirmed that she did for that night. The landlord’s policy states that part of its emergency plan includes providing immediate shelter and short‑term accommodation for people who are made temporarily homeless following a fire. The resident told us that alternative accommodation was provided 8 weeks after the incident. However, we have not seen any records showing that alternative accommodation was offered earlier or giving any explanation for the 8‑week delay, despite the policy’s requirement to provide immediate shelter.
9. While we acknowledge the wider shortage of available housing, the landlord still has a responsibility to provide alternative accommodation in situations such as this. Its own policy confirms that such support will be provided immediately, which does not appear to have occurred in this case. In mitigation, it is unclear whether/when the resident informed the landlord of any change in circumstances which meant she relied on it to provide temporary accommodation.
10. The landlord informed us that it does not hold any repair records relating to the fire. It explained that the staff member who had managed the case left the organisation on 10 July 2023 and had not saved the relevant information appropriately. Instead, the information was stored only in that staff member’s emails and phone records, which were permanently deleted on 10 July 2024. The absence of repair records and case notes is concerning. It is essential that landlords maintain clear, accurate, and easily accessible records to provide a full audit trail. When we investigate a complaint, we will request the landlord’s records, and where evidence is disputed and an audit trail is missing, we may be unable to conclude that an action took place.
11. The landlord told us it did not become aware of the missing records until after the staff member had left. This is also concerning, as we would expect the landlord to have adequate oversight of its staff and records, particularly in relation to such a serious incident. Furthermore, the landlord did not comply with its fire safety management procedure, which states that any member of staff involved in a serious fire-related incident must report it to the Head of Health & Safety. The Head of Health & Safety is then required to inform the Head of Legislative Compliance, who must ensure senior management are notified. It is evident this process was not followed, as the landlord only became aware of the lack of records after the staff member’s departure.
12. Given the seriousness of the incident, there should have been a level of management oversight to ensure that full and accurate records were kept throughout.
13. The evidence shows that an inspection took place on 14 December 2023, which confirmed that all necessary remedial works had been completed. These works included a new roof, a full electrical rewire, a new gas boiler, a new kitchen, and a complete replastering and redecoration of the entire property, including new flooring.
14. In her formal complaint, the resident stated that she was “disgusted” by the lack of communication from the landlord following the fire. She also said that the property was “not the same” and that damage remained unrepaired, specifically referring to floorboards, stairs, and cracks in the plaster.
15. The landlord contacted the resident on 17 July 2024 to arrange an inspection. Internal correspondence noted learning from the complaint, acknowledging that the complaint should be upheld due to shrinkage in the plaster and timber. This shrinkage was attributed to the significant amount of water used by the fire service when extinguishing the fire. It was also noted that additional dehumidifiers should have been provided to help dry the property. The landlord’s decision to visit the property was positive, as it demonstrated that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and investigating what further action might be necessary.
16. In the landlord’s stage 1 response dated 30 July 2024, it outlined the works for which it considered no further action was required, as well as the works it intended to undertake. It stated that the complaint had been partially upheld, but it did not clearly explain the reasons for this decision. Although the response identified shrinkage in the woodwork and plaster within the list of works, the explanation for upholding the complaint could have been more detailed.
17. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns about the lack of contact following the fire. We have seen no evidence to show that it kept her updated on the progress of the works, nor any record of regular communication during the period in which the resident was displaced. Effective communication is especially important when a resident has been forced to leave their home, as they rely on the landlord for timely information about repairs, safety, and when the property will become habitable again.
18. The absence of updates would understandably have caused the resident uncertainty and distress at an already difficult time. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide clear, proactive, and structured updates throughout the process, consistent with good practice and with the level of support expected in cases involving significant property damage and temporary displacement.
19. While the landlord apologised for the resident having cause to complain, it did not offer a specific apology for the issues it accepted or fully explain why the complaint was being partially upheld. Given that the landlord had identified failings in its handling of the situation, we would also have expected it to offer some form of compensation.
20. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for discretionary payments where it has failed to meet its own service standards – for example, completing work within the agreed timescales or keeping the resident informed throughout the process. While we cannot comment on whether the landlord met its repair timescales due to the absence of records, the resident told us that she was unable to return to her home for over 6 months. In addition, it is evident that the landlord was not proactive in its communication with the resident during this period.
21. Given these shortcomings, the landlord could reasonably have applied its discretionary compensation policy. The prolonged displacement, combined with poor communication and its acknowledged failings in record keeping and oversight, created a situation in which a compensatory payment would have been appropriate.
22. Between 12 September 2024 and 26 February 2025 the landlord carried out further works and subsequently wrote to the resident, confirming that in its view all repairs associated with the fire had been completed. On 9 April 2025, the resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2. She explained that the flooring on the landing and in the bedroom was uneven and bowed. She also raised additional concerns, stating that she had been pressured by a member of staff not to involve this Service, as the works would not be completed if she did so. Furthermore, she reported that she had not received an apology or any documentation explaining what had happened on the day of the fire.
23. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 May 2025, confirming that all repairs relating to the fire had been completed. It stated that it would address the concerns about staff behaviour directly with the staff member involved and remind them of the expected standards of conduct. While it was appropriate for the landlord to take this action, it should have done so before issuing its complaint response so that it could provide the resident with a clear update on the action it had taken to address her concerns. The landlord later told us that it had met with the staff member and decided that no further action was required. However, there is no evidence of case notes or records to demonstrate that this meeting took place, representing another failure in record keeping.
24. The landlord stated that it had partially upheld the complaint but again did not provide a full explanation for this decision. It also failed to consider any compensation. While we acknowledge that the landlord carried out significant works in the property, these works were required as a direct result of the fire and fell within its normal repair obligations. Therefore, the completion of these repairs cannot be considered a form of redress.
25. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the matter was not appropriate. The most significant concerns relate to the absence of accurate records, limited oversight of staff involvement in a serious incident, and inadequate communication with the resident at critical stages of the process.
26. The landlord failed to maintain essential repair records, case notes, and documentation relating to the fire and subsequent works. This reflected poor record keeping practice and also contravened its own fire safety management procedures, which required serious incidents to be escalated to senior management. The landlord’s failure to identify the lack of records until after the relevant staff member had left demonstrates a concerning lack of management oversight.
27. In addition, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord provided the resident with any meaningful contact, which is particularly concerning given the seriousness of the incident and the distressing circumstances faced by the resident. Taken together, these failings resulted in a service response that did not meet the expected standards and contributed to avoidable distress and inconvenience for the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

28. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days of receipt. A stage 1 response will be provided within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. This is in line with our statutory Complaint Handling Code.
29. The landlord adhered to its complaints policy by acknowledging the resident’s formal complaint within the required 5 working days and issuing its stage 1 response within the 10-working-day timeframe.
30. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 9 April 2025, and the landlord acknowledged this the same day, in line with its policy. It then issued its stage 2 response 9 working days after acknowledgment, which was within the required timescale.

Learning

31. Our investigation found the following points of learning for the landlord:

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord’s record keeping was poor. It should improve its record keeping practices by ensuring that clear and accurate documentation is maintained, and that records are stored centrally to mitigate against staff turnover. Our spotlight reports on complaints about repairs and knowledge and information management can assist with this.

Communication

33. The landlord should review how it applies its complaints policy to ensure it issues responses within the required timescales. In doing so, it may find it helpful to refer to our Complaint Handling Code. The landlord may also wish to utilise the Housing Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning and give consideration to arranging staff attendance at our workshop on complaint handling.