Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202331741)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331741

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited

29 September 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 response to the resident’s reports of defects at her property, in particular repairs to the staircase.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord in a shared ownership scheme. The resident purchased the lease to her property in 2019.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 August 2023 and reported there was an issue with the staircase. She said some of her stairs had “caved in”. She asked about whether the staircase was under warranty as it was only 4 years old.
  3. The landlord responded on 15 August 2023 and said the property had a 10 year NHBC (National House Building Council) warranty. It said the warranty covered structural defects. It said the resident would need to speak to the NHBC directly to see if the staircase was covered. It provided a leaflet about the NHBC cover, and details of how she could contact it. It explained that as the property was 4 years old it was outside of the defect liability period so the developer was no longer responsible for any issues.
  4. The resident made a complaint on 23 November 2023. She said she was unhappy with the quality of the construction of the staircase. She said a carpenter had inspected and said the stairs were “dangerous”. She said she was not willing to pay the NHBC excess to have the stairs repaired and she wanted the landlord to cover the costs of the repairs.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident on 8 December 2023. It said the resident’s complaint could not be investigated under its complaints policy. It included an extract from its complaints policy and said it could not investigate the resident’s complaint because it had “acted where regulatory, policy, or legislative restrictions apply”. It said the complaint fell outside of its, and the property developer’s, obligations because the “legal defects period” had passed. It restated its advice about pursuing a claim with the NHBC. It said it would not take any further action in relation to the matter.
  6. The NHBC wrote to the resident on 7 December 2023 and said her claim was not covered under the warranty policy. This was because the cost of the repair was the same as the excess amount on the policy.
  7. The resident contacted us on 29 January 2024 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her concerns about the staircase and wanted it to cover the costs of the repairs needed.
  8. The resident paid for a carpenter to do repairs to the staircase in July 2024. The resident contacted us again around that time and provided a copy of the invoice. She said she wanted the landlord to cover her costs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

  1. Whether the repairs to the staircase raised by the resident were defects that were the responsibility of the landlord/developer to rectify is disputed. The resident said throughout her complaint and when she asked us to investigate, that the landlord should pay the costs she incurred. The landlord maintained its position throughout that the matter was outside the defect liability period. As such it advised the resident to make a claim to the NHBC.
  2. We have seen evidence the resident raised a claim with the NHBC, and she was unhappy with the amount of excess she would have to pay with any claim. The NHBC is not a member of our Scheme and as such we have no jurisdiction over its actions. If the resident is unhappy with the actions of the NHBC she may want to make a complaint to it directly. If she is then unhappy after exhausting the NHBC’s complaints procedure, she could take her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).
  3. We acknowledge the situation was distressing and inconvenient for the resident. The resident claimed the landlord was liable for costs as the staircase it/ the developer built at the property was not fit for purpose. We do not seek to dispute the resident’s claim she incurred costs. However, it is not within our remit to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts.
  4. It is the role of this Service to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures. We have therefore assessed whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about costs she incurred was reasonable. What we have not done is made a determination on whether the landlord was or was not liable for the resident’s costs. She may wish to seek independent advice if she wishes to pursue this matter further.
  5. We are also unable to investigate matters dating back to when the staircase was built in 2019. Our Scheme says we may not investigate matters that were not brought to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable period of the matter arising, usually 12 months. Therefore, this investigation has focused on the reasonable period leading up to when the resident made her complaint in November 2023. This approach is taken in line with that set out in our Scheme.
  6. When the resident brought her complaint to us she raised concerns about further defects at the property which were: concerns about the flooring around the door, and nesting birds. We have determined the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure on 11 November 2023 when it sent its final position on the matter of the staircase. Neither of these issues were raised when the resident made her complaint in November 2023. Therefore, the above matters have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. As outlined in our Scheme a matter must have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure before we can investigate. The resident may wish to raise a complaint about defects not raised as part of this complaint. We may then investigate if she remains unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the staircase

  1. The resident’s lease agreement says she is responsible for repairs within her property.
  2. The NHBC home warranty and builder guarantee document for the property says the “contractor repair warranty” covered the first 2 years after the property was built. (from July 2019 to July 2021) After that the NHBC covers the property for 10 years “after the end of the contractor repair warranty period”.
  3. When the resident raised concerns about her staircase, in August 2023, the landlord responded within a reasonable period. The landlord explained its position (that the defect liability period had passed) with clarity. It explained the resident could raise a claim with the NHBC and provided guidance around how she could pursue a claim. Based on the information available it is apparent the period in which the landlord/developer was responsible for defects expired after 2 years of the property was built (in 2021). Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to pursue her claim with the NHBC.
  4. The landlord used its response in November 2023 to outlined its position with clarity and consistency. We acknowledge the resident disagreed with its position. However, based on the evidence available the landlord was correct to advise the resident to pursue a claim from the NHBC. In fact, given the defect liability had expired, if the landlord had have completed repairs to the staircase it may have invalidated the warranty the resident had with the NHBC. It was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to follow the correct process for claims for defects.
  5. The resident told us as part of this investigation that the repairs needed were higher than the excess the NHBC quoted previously. She may wish to raise a new claim with the NHBC if she wishes to pursue this matter further. Claims with the NHBC fall outside the complaints process and it is a separate organisation from the landlord. Therefore, we cannot comment on the NHBC’s actions if a claim is made to it, or the likely outcome of such a claim.
  6. The landlord said in its response in November 2023 that it could not issue a response to the resident as a formal complaint. This was a shortcoming in its complaint handling. Our Code, at the time said a complaint should only be excluded from a landlord’s process if legal proceedings had started, and it must have a valid reason for not accepting a complaint. The landlord’s reasons for not accepting the complaint were unreasonable. We recommend it completes training with its complaint handling staff on our Code and what can and cannot be excluded from its complaints process.
  7. While a shortcoming in its complaint handling, the landlord did use its response to set out its final position on the matter. It also advised the resident about how she could seek assistance from us. Therefore, we consider the shortcoming did not cause the level of detriment that warrants an adverse finding in its handling of this matter.
  8. The landlord’s response to the issue was reasonable in the circumstances. It set out its position within a reasonable timeframe. It also showed consistency. It gave appropriate advice about where the resident could get help with the issue. As such, we have determined there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects at her property.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects at her property, in particular the staircase.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord conducts training with its complaint handling staff. The training should focus on our Complaint Handling Code and what are considered reasonable exclusions when deciding whether or not to accept a complaint.