From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202327491)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327491

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited

18 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her hallway being narrow.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application and its associated communication.
  2. We will also consider the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident held an assured tenancy with the landlord and lived in a 2-bedroom, split level flat at the time of the complaint. The building door opened to a narrow hallway with doors leading to bedrooms on the ground floor. Stairs in the hallway led up to the second floor where the resident’s kitchen, bathroom and living room were.
  2. On 29 September 2023, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord. She reported that she was pregnant and said the landlord had previously told her that she would need to move if she had children as the property would be unsuitable due to the narrow hallway. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had not visited her property to inspect. The resident was unhappy with the lack of communication and failed call backs in response to her contacts about her transfer application.
  3. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 12 October 2023. In summary it said:
    1. A transfer application had been accepted on the day of the transfer inspection.
    2. A community co-ordinator was due to visit the resident’s property on 21 August 2023. This was cancelled due to the staff member being ill.
    3. It identified communication failings where some calls from the resident were not forwarded to the correct department.
    4. It inspected the resident’s property on 30 August 2023 for a stock condition survey and on 14 September 2023 for a transfer inspection. These were not directly related to the hallway, but the matter was not identified as a health and safety hazard.
    5. It partially upheld the complaint due to the identified communication failings but was satisfied that it processed her transfer application correctly.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 18 October 2023. She was dissatisfied that the landlord staff who visited her property did not check or measure the hallway. She had ongoing safety concerns about the suitability of the flat for when her baby was born. Additionally, the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s communication around her transfer request.
  5. On 20 October 2023, the landlord issued a stage 2 final complaint response. In summary it said:
    1. It would not investigate historic communication issues in relation to her transfer application. This had been investigated as part of previous complaint responses.
    2. It did not recall restrictions about children living at the resident’s flat and her tenancy agreement did not include this.
    3. A visit to assess the hallway was cancelled and not rearranged as a stock condition survey was upcoming. The landlord did not update the resident about this and offered £100 compensation for this failing.
    4. Its position about the hallway remained the same as its stage 1 response. It would not arrange a further inspection.
    5. It was unable to influence the local authority’s banding decision for the resident.
  6. The local authority wrote to the landlord on 1 November 2023 to advise that it had conducted a housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) inspection at the resident’s property. They identified a category 1 hazard for entrapment due to the narrow hallway. The resident was placed in temporary accommodation by the local authority on 17 November 2023 after she gave birth. She went directly from the hospital into temporary accommodation.
  7. The landlord provided the resident temporary accommodation between 24 November 2023 until 7 December 2023 when the resident was transferred to alternative permanent accommodation by the landlord.
  8. The landlord completed a review of the complaint on 9 January 2024. In summary it said:
    1. Findings from the local authority’s HHSRS inspection supported the resident’s claim that the narrow hallway was unsuitable for a baby.
    2. It provided the resident with temporary accommodation as soon as it became aware that the local authority had placed her and her family into emergency accommodation.
    3. Its inspections of the property had been inadequate as they did not identify the hazard.
    4. It would write off the resident’s outstanding rent arrears from her previous flat which stood at £709.83 as a gesture of good will. It offered a discretionary payment of £600 to put things right for its failings.
  9. The resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman on 29 August 2024. She remains dissatisfied that she experienced distress and upheaval when she became homeless immediately after giving birth. She feels that the landlord’s investigations into her concerns of the hallway were insufficient. To resolve the complaint, the resident is seeking a higher offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident did not escalate matters concerning the landlord’s handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) to stage 2 of the complaints process. As there is no evidence that a complaint about these issues has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, the Ombudsman will not consider the landlord’s handling of reported ASB as part of this investigation.
  2. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her transfer request dating from 2020. Within the landlord’s complaint response, it said that previous matters about her transfer application dating from this time had been addressed in historic complaint responses. In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint of normally within 12 months of the matters arising. As the resident raised a complaint on 29 September 2023, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports from September 2022 onwards. The assessment will not consider events between 2020 until September 2022 as these matters did not occur within 12 months of the complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her hallway being narrow

  1. Records suggest that the resident initially reported concerns about the hallway being narrow to her landlord in August 2023. The resident advised that she was pregnant and had previously been told that she should notify it if she became pregnant due to the hallway not being suitable for children. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord made internal enquiries to establish whether other staff members were aware of restrictions for children to live at the flat. No records were located of this. Therefore, an inspection was raised to assess the hallway on 23 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns in a timely manner and its initial plan to further investigate was appropriate.
  2. The hallway inspection was cancelled by the landlord, and it noted that this would not be rearranged due to an upcoming stock condition survey and transfer inspection at the property. Although this may have been reasonable, the landlord failed to communicate the update to the resident. This would have left the resident unclear on how her concerns were being addressed. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response that it did not communicate its plans to the resident and offered her £100 compensation for this. The Ombudsman considers the compensation proportionate to this communication failing as it is in line with our remedies guidance which recommends such a sum where there has been a low impact on the resident.
  3. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 30 August 2023 for a stock condition survey and 14 September 2023 for a transfer inspection. However, records show that neither of the landlord staff members who attended the property had been asked to inspect the hallway or informed about the resident’s concerns. As such, the staff members visiting the property did not make any records on the date of the visits about the hallway. The stock condition survey and transfer inspections did not satisfactorily address the resident’s concerns.
  4. After the resident’s complaint had been logged, the complaint handler contacted both staff members to enquire about the hallway. One staff member recalled that the resident had mentioned the hallway being narrow during the visit. They suggested that the space was narrow but reasonable for the tenant even when she had a baby. However, there were no records from the time of the visit to corroborate this and it is unclear how this conclusion was reached. The second colleague said that their inspection involved looking for physical damage to the property which might have stopped the resident from being approved for a property transfer. The transfer inspection report did not contain any reference to the hallway.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied after the visits and informed the landlord that both staff members who attended the property did not know about her concerns regarding the hallway. She said that it had not been measured or checked during the visits. She reported that she had concerns that the hallway could affect the safety of her baby when born. At this stage, the landlord should have acknowledged its shortcomings in its inspections and arranged a visit specifically to assess her hallway.
  6. Although the landlord identified in its complaint responses that the inspections were not directly related to the issue of the hallway, it concluded that it was reasonable for it not to organise a separate inspection of the hallway. The Ombudsman does not consider this to be a fair response given the above.
  7. Additionally, the landlord said in its complaint response that the hallway was not identified as a health and safety risk. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord made this judgement with no evidence to substantiate the claim. The resident continued to express concerns about the layout of her flat for when her baby was born, but the landlord took no further action and maintained that the property would be suitable for a child or a baby. This response was unreasonable.
  8. The local authority subsequently identified that the resident’s hallway was a category 1 hazard for entrapment and concluded that the property would not be safe for a baby. It informed the landlord of this in writing on 1 November 2023, 8 November 2023, and provided further information on 22 November 2023. The landlord took no action until 23 November 2023 when it offered alternative temporary accommodation for the resident and her baby. In the meantime, the local authority placed the resident into temporary accommodation on 17 November 2023.
  9. It was unreasonable that it took the landlord over 3 weeks to contact the resident. The landlord should have prioritised seeking alternative accommodation for the resident as soon as it was informed of the hazard by the local authority on 1 November 2023. The uncertainty for the resident during this time and lack of support from the landlord is likely to have caused her significant distress, particularly as she had just given birth and was unable to return to her home.
  10. Having said this, from 23 November 2023 the landlord’s communication with the resident improved. The landlord sought alternative temporary accommodation which was more suitable for the family from 24 November 2023 until 7 December 2023 when the landlord offered the resident a permanent offer of alternative accommodation. Records suggest that the landlord offered decant payments to the resident during this time which the Ombudsman would expect it to do.
  11. The landlord decided to reopen the complaint after its final response. Within this, it identified that its record keeping was at fault and the resident’s claim that the property was not suitable for children was correct and was supported by the local authority’s inspection. It also identified that its inspections of her home were inadequate as the hazard had not been identified by its staff during the transfer inspection and stock condition survey.
  12. Although it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged some of its failings, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord’s responses identified the extent of its shortcomings. The landlord did not acknowledge its failure to sufficiently inspect the hallway over a prolonged period, nor did it identify that it incorrectly informed the resident that the property was safe for her continued habitation. Additionally, it did not apologise to the resident or acknowledge the significant distress and inconvenience caused to her when she was homeless.
  13. The impact on the resident is likely to have been exacerbated by her circumstances and vulnerabilities at the time. The landlord’s lack of action throughout the case directly resulted in detriment to the resident. Given the above, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her hallway being narrow.
  14. Although the landlord took some steps to put things right, its offer of £600 for the distress and inconvenience and writing off the resident’s remaining rent arrears is not considered proportionate to the impact on the resident. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in its handling of this matter. In line with our remedies guidance as referenced above, the landlord must also increase its offer of compensation from a total of £600 to £1,000. This amount is reflective of the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by a culmination of landlord failings over a 4-month period.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application and its associated communication

  1. Records show that the resident contacted the landlord to request a transfer to a neighbour’s property in April 2023. The landlord responded to inform her that she could not be considered for a move as she was not on the transfer list. It was appropriate that at this stage the staff member advised the resident that a transfer form could be completed once she had provided medical evidence.
  2. The Ombudsman has not seen records between May 2023 until August 2023 and is therefore unable to confirm whether there were any communications during this period.
  3. On 4 August 2023, the landlord responded to an MP enquiry about the resident’s transfer application. It advised that a medical letter had been received from the resident, but she had not yet completed a transfer form. The landlord subsequently phoned the resident on 16 August 2023 and completed the transfer application form with her. This was appropriate.
  4. Following this, the landlord arranged a visit to complete its transfer inspection on 22 August 2023. Within its complaint response, the landlord identified that this was cancelled and rearranged for 14 September 2023. Although the landlord said it had attempted to contact the resident to inform her of this, the Ombudsman has not seen any communication records to corroborate this. In the absence of this information, the Ombudsman is unable to confirm that the landlord effectively communicated with the resident about the transfer inspection.
  5. It is positive that the landlord phoned the resident shortly after her complaint was logged to advise her that she had been on the transfer list since 18 September 2023. The landlord outlined the transfer process to the resident and advised her that she was second on the waiting list for a 2-bedroom house in 2 areas. It set her expectations that the landlord only had 26 properties in these specific areas, so was unable to guarantee when an offer could be made. Although this advice was reasonable, it is concerning that the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with records from the time of the phone call. This information was recorded within an internal landlord email. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management outlines that records should tell the full story of what happened, when, why, and should be created as close as possible to the time of any events it is documenting.
  6. The landlord said in its complaint response that a letter was sent to the resident on 18 September 2023 to confirm her registration onto the transfer list. The Ombudsman is again unable to substantiate this as we have not seen evidence of it.
  7. A staff member emailed their manager on 29 September 2023 and recorded that they had informed the resident that they would ask whether the landlord could speak to the local authority about her banding being changed. The manager responded to the colleague and advised that the landlord could not influence the banding set by the local authority as they would award a banding based on their own allocations policy. Whilst this decision was reasonable, there is no evidence that this was fed back to the resident until the landlord’s complaint response on 20 October 2023. The resident reported that she was under the impression that the landlord was going to speak to the local authority about her housing. The landlord should have set the resident’s expectations and explained that it could not influence the local authority’s allocation banding as soon as this was confirmed.
  8. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had contacted it on 20, 27, 28, and 29 September 2023, but identified it had not forwarded all of these calls to the relevant officer. It apologised for the occasions where its communication fell short.
  9. Overall, the landlord appeared to activate the resident’s transfer application in a timely manner and provided advice which the Ombudsman considers to be appropriate. However, the landlord’s record keeping was poor which has made it difficult to confirm the extent of the communication issues and corroborate some of the actions the landlord said it took.
  10. Nonetheless, it is clear that there were instances where the landlord’s communication with the resident was not to the expected standard and the resident incurred time and trouble chasing updates. The landlord acknowledged that there were times where its communication fell short, and it offered an apology for this. In accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy, it can make awards of compensation in circumstances where there has been a failing resulting in minimal impact and short duration, including where the resident incurs time and trouble. In this instance, the landlord did not award any compensation to the resident for its communication failings in relation to her transfer application.
  11. The Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord’s remedy of an apology was proportionate to the communication failings identified. As such, we have made a finding of service failure. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £150 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident for the landlord’s communication failings.

The landlord’s record keeping

  1. As part of this investigation, the landlord was requested to provide relevant information that would reasonably be recorded and retained by the landlord. The documentation provided was limited. For example, the majority of its communications with the resident were written retrospectively within internal emails. No communication logs to record incoming or outgoing phone calls were provided to the Ombudsman. Additionally, the landlord referred to communications within its complaint responses for which no records were available. As such, the Ombudsman was unable to corroborate actions and communications which the landlord said it made.
  2. Poor record keeping has been a consistent theme throughout the landlord’s handling of this case. Clear record-keeping is a core function of a housing service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management says that, “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.” These failings were evident in this case. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is deemed appropriate.
  3. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to review its existing databases to ensure it can capture required information. It should complete this review and provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the findings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her hallway being narrow.
    2. Service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application and its associated communication.
    3. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her narrow hallway.
  2. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident a total of £1,250 (minus any payments previously made). This is comprised of:
    1. £100 as already offered by the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response for its failure to communicate with the resident about it not re-arranging the hallway inspection.
    2. £1,000 to account for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s repeated failings in its handling of her concerns about the narrow hallway over a 4 month period. This amount is inclusive of the £600 already offered by the landlord when it reopened the complaint.
    3. £150 to account for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s communication failings in respect of her transfer application.
  3. The landlord is ordered to carry out a full review of its procedures and systems in relation to record keeping. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management. The landlord should share its findings with this service.
  4. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks from the date of this report.