Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202234699)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234699

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited

13 March 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. Repairs following a burst pipe.
    2. The resident’s application for compensation.

Background

  1. The resident is a joint assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom bungalow. The resident lives with her husband. Both her and her husband have vulnerabilities that the landlord was aware of. She has lived at the property since October 2021.
  2. While the resident was on holiday on 29 December 2022, a pipe connected to the water tank in the loft split. Her family member visited and found water flooding the property. The family member called the landlord who attended to the emergency repair within 4 hours of the report. The landlord made the property safe, set up dehumidifiers, and conducted further works to the water tank the following day.
  3. The resident returned from her holiday on 9 January 2023. The landlord inspected the property the same day. It raised repairs to the ceiling, internal doors, and lighting. The resident told the landlord she would claim through her contents insurance for the damaged flooring.
  4. The resident asked for confirmation of the cause of the leak from the landlord for her insurer. In a letter to her on 16 January 2023, the landlord confirmed that a copper pipe had split from frost while the resident was away from the property. Her insurer inspected the property on 17 January 2023 and agreed to cover the cost of replacing the laminate floors.
  5. The landlord inspected the property on 19 January 2023. It found high levels of condensation and moisture were present. Water had saturated the floors and the resident was unable to take it up themselves. The landlord passed works to its contractor to remove the flooring. It offered to leave a dehumidifier, but the resident declined as she was concerned about the running cost and its effectiveness while the flooring was still so wet. The resident did not want the landlord to move her temporarily and the landlord found no immediate risk to the resident. It agreed to send a compensation claim form to her and to return for a further inspection in 2-3 weeks.
  6. The resident complained to the landlord on 23 April 2023. She said the property was damp, had no flooring, and wet concrete floors for 3 months. She felt the landlord should have acted sooner to lift the floors and dry out the property. She was unhappy with the landlord’s compensation procedure.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 April 2023. It partially upheld the complaint. It summarised the repairs conducted and determined that works were complete on 18 April 2023 to a good standard. It discussed her compensation claim and advised her to provide further evidence to support this.
  8. The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 3 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the request the same day. It wrote seeking an extension to issue its response by 10 working days on 16 May 2023. It issued its stage 2 response on 31 May 2023. It did not uphold her complaint. It reiterated the points made at stage 1. It concluded that if it had removed the laminate sooner and left the dehumidifier on site and running, the property would have dried quicker.
  9. The landlord offered the resident £55 in decorating vouchers on 30 June 2023. It offered her £51.52 compensation for the additional energy used between January and March 2023 on 4 July 2023.
  10. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s final response and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 18 October 2023. She said works to the bathroom were outstanding.
  11. The landlord made its decision on the resident’s compensation claim on 6 December 2023. It did not award compensation for loss of rooms, communication, property improvements, or the impact on her mental health. It reiterated the offer of £53.81 for additional energy use. It offered £250 as a goodwill gesture for a separate matter related to her bathroom.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord resolved the repairs at the time of its final complaint response. In her complaints to the landlord, the resident said she was unhappy with the amount of compensation paid. She believed the landlord did not adequately account for the damage to the property. She felt it had not considered the inconvenience caused or the impact the issues had on her family’s physical and mental health.
  2. This Service does not look at claims for damages in the way that an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damages. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the landlord should reimburse her for the rent paid or decorating/materials/utility costs. These claims may be better suited via other avenues, such as independent legal action or a claim through the resident’s or the landlord’s insurer. We will consider the overall impact of any delays on the resident and any distress and inconvenience caused.
  3. During the complaint journey, the resident told the landlord that the damp caused by the flood impacted her mental health. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether the landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will acknowledge written requests for compensation within 10 working days, or 5 working days when sent by email. It does not set out timescales in which it will make a decision. The policy says that it will not pay compensation for personal injury claims. It states that its insurer makes any decisions on claims for personal injury.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy also states that where it has partially or fully upheld a complaint, it will consider offering compensation. This is dependent on several factors including the severity of the service failure and the impact on the resident. Where there has been damage to interior decoration, it will consider awards up to £375.

Repairs following a burst pipe

  1. Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair. It must ensure that the property remains fit for human habitation throughout her tenancy. The landlord must look at the condition of its properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards.
  2. Damp and mould are potential category 1 hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. The landlord should be aware of its obligations under HHSRS. Where it has identified potential hazards, it should conduct additional monitoring of the property. In this case, the water damage caused by the leak in December 2022 caused excess moisture to be present in the property. The surveys conducted by both the landlord and the resident’s insurer evidenced excess moisture in the property in January 2023. This would have contributed to the presence of damp and mould.
  3. The landlord appropriately responded to the initial flood report in December 2022 when it attended the repair the same day and provided a dehumidifier. It treated the escape of water seriously and repaired the cause of the leak within the timescales set out in its policy and procedures. It also appropriately left a dehumidifier to begin drying out the property while the resident was on holiday. It was reasonable to wait for the resident’s return in January 2023 before conducting further inspections.
  4. The landlord identified considerable repairs to replace doors, repair the ceiling, and dry out the property on 9 January 2023. Its records show that it found a low risk of the ceiling collapsing so it did not need to temporarily move the resident. In its stage 2 response on 31 May 2023, the landlord said it offered to remove the flooring during this inspection, but the resident refused. This was to allow her insurer time to inspect the damage. It did not record any details of this discussion in its inspection report, but it is reasonable to suggest that the insurer should inspect the floor before removing it.
  5. The resident argued that the landlord dismissed the impact the water damage had on her in January 2023. She said it did not offer to move her and refused to consider it when she asked. The landlord’s records show that it discussed moving the resident during its inspections on 9 and 19 January 2023. Its notes say that the resident “agreed that they do not need to be [moved]”. It also addressed this issue in its stage 1 response on 27 April 2023. The Ombudsman must rely on the available evidence, which suggests the landlord did consider moving the resident. Therefore, there was no failing by the landlord in its decision making at this point.
  6. The resident said that her insurer recommended the landlord move her temporarily when it visited on 17 January 2023. The operative visiting on the insurer’s behalf did not record any recommendations to move the resident. The landlord shared this finding in its stage 2 response on 31 May 2023. It also appropriately offered to reconsider its finding if the resident provided evidence to the contrary.
  7. Once the insurer went to the property on 17 January 2023, the landlord returned promptly on 19 January 2023. During this inspection, the landlord recorded high levels of condensation and moisture. The laminate flooring and underlay were saturated. The landlord appropriately arranged for its contractor to remove the sodden flooring, which it completed the following day. Its decision to provide a dehumidifier to dry out the property was appropriate. Its decision to conduct a further inspection 2-3 weeks later was also reasonable. The landlord showed its intention to remove the water present in the property and reduce the impact on the resident.
  8. However, it was not until 2 March 2023 that the landlord conducted a further inspection or passed works to its contractor. This was around 6 weeks later. It is unclear from the landlord’s records why to took so long to begin these works. There were substantial repairs required to the plastering, loft insulation, internal doors, and kitchen flooring. It should have ensured that it returned promptly following its visit on 19 January 2023. It should have prioritised the remaining works given the resident’s vulnerabilities. It did not and this was a failure. This was an unacceptable delay that would have contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  9. Although the landlord offered to remove the resident’s laminate flooring in March 2023, it should have made this decision much sooner in the timeline. The landlord appropriately recognised that there was a delay in its decision making in its stage 2 response on 31 May 2023. However, it did not do anything to put things right in the circumstances. It should have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its stage 2 response. Instead, it directed her to pursue her compensation application, where it later made no additional offers of redress for this failing.
  10. During the 3 months between January and March 2023, the resident lived in a damp property with water damaged walls and floors. This would have been unpleasant and likely took a toll on the resident’s emotional wellbeing. She made this clear to the landlord in her emails between January and March 2023. Despite the impact this situation had on the resident, the landlord did not complete the works until 19 April 2023. This was an additional 6 weeks later. This was an unacceptable delay and caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  11. The landlord appropriately offered to redecorate the entrance hall and its ceiling, and stain block the living room ceiling on 22 March 2023. It eventually completed these works, along with those listed above, on 18 April 2023.
  12. The landlord failed to address the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its complaint responses. It should have reflected on the overall delays to complete works in the property. Although the landlord partially upheld her complaint and directed her to its compensation procedures, it did not put things right in the circumstances.
  13. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs following a burst pipe. Its immediate response to the repair was reasonable. It made the leak safe and repaired the cause. It provided a dehumidifier to remove the moisture and considered moving the resident. It was reasonable to await the outcome of the insurer’s visit before removing the flooring. It acted within the scope of its policies and procedures.
  14. However, there were considerable delays to schedule and then complete works to the rest of the property. In total, the resident endured around 4 months of discomfort, made worse by her and her husband’s vulnerabilities. This was an unacceptable delay and would have contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience. She described living with sodden furniture and uneven floors. She said that doors would not close properly and the circumstances impacted on her mental wellbeing.
  15. The landlord did not use its complaint handling effectively to consider these delays or put things right for the resident. It should pay the resident £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is reflective of the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies where there has been a failure that has had a significant impact on the resident. It also reflects the landlord’s guidance on compensation in its compensation policy where there has been a high impact on the resident.

Application for compensation

  1. The resident submitted her initial compensation claim on 21 January 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the request or provide her with an outcome within 10 working days. This caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing her application on 6 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged this 12 working days later, on 22 March 2023.
  2. In its complaint responses, it said the claim was not progressed because the resident refused to provide further evidence on 11 April 2023. The delays early in the timeline caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing her complaints. The landlord did not address this additional time and trouble in its complaint responses.
  3. The resident had paid a third party to decorate her living room and bedrooms on 5 March 2023. In her submissions to the landlord for compensation, she said this cost her £1,875. The landlord’s building insurance should cover damage to the walls and decoration due to an escape of water, rather than the resident’s contents insurance. The landlord should have considered this aspect of her claim for compensation and direct it to its insurer. It failed to do so. Its June 2023 offer of £55 to cover decorations was unreasonable and not reflective of the detriment caused to the resident.
  4. In its complaint responses, the landlord appropriately stated that it would not award compensation for damages to the resident’s mental health. However, it did not direct her to its liability insurer, as set out in its compensation policy. This was a failing that impacted the resident’s ability to progress a claim to its insurer in a reasonable period.
  5. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for compensation. The landlord did not appropriately apply its own policies and procedures when considering the compensation it should offer. It did not direct the resident to its insurer to consider a claim for damages to her health or property. The landlord should offer the resident £320 towards her costs to redecorate the property, in reflection of the maximum it can offer as set out in its compensation policy. It should review the resident’s evidence of losses and consider if additional compensation is appropriate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs following a burst pipe.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for compensation.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £920 compensation, in addition to the £53.81 already offered. This is comprised of:
      1. £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its handling of repairs following a burst pipe.
      2. £320 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident in its handling of the compensation application.
    3. Review the resident’s evidence of financial losses incurred and consider if any additional compensation is appropriate, with its reasons.
    4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to the Ombudsman.