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.

NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited (202412323)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202412323

NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited

19 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 handling of the resident’s concerns that it did not properly secure her home following a house fire.
  2. We have also looked at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. The resident lived in the house with her adult son prior to an accidental house fire.
  2. The fire at the resident’s home occurred on 21 November 2023. The resident and her son were temporarily re-housed in a hotel and the landlord put up temporary fencing around the property the same day.
  3. On 28 November 2023, the landlord met with its contractor and the local authority’s building control department to inspect the resident’s home. They agreed that it was not safe to enter the property and that part of the gable wall and chimney stack needed to be removed as it was at risk of collapsing. The contractor said the contents of the property, including the resident’s personal belongings, had been contaminated by the collapsed ceilings.
  4. The contractor boarded the ground floor of the property on 30 November 2023 which included the windows and doors.
  5. The resident’s son called the landlord on 30 November 2023 and said his and his mother’s personal belongings were still in the property and that he had gained access to try and retrieve them. The landlord told him not to go back into the property again.
  6. The resident’s son made a complaint to the landlord on 5 December 2023. He told it the property had not been boarded properly and that personal items remaining in his mother’s home were not secure.
  7. The landlord issued the resident’s son with its stage 1 response to his complaint on 29 January 2024. It said due to general data protection regulation (GDPR) it could not discuss its handling of the works to secure the property with him as he was not named on the tenancy agreement. However, it did confirm to him the property was secure.
  8. The landlord spoke with the resident’s son again on 1 February 2024 and explained the measures it had put in place to secure the property. It told him the structure was dangerous and that he should not attempt access again.
  9. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process on 12 February 2024.
  10. The landlord contacted the resident’s son on 8 March 2024 to tell him that he would need to provide it with evidence of written confirmation from his mother that he was raising a complaint on her behalf for it to respond fully to the complaint. It also told him that it had carried out a site visit and confirmed the property was secure on the ground floor and that it would be boarding the first floor in due course.
  11. The resident’s son emailed the landlord with proof that his mother had given him permission to act as her representative and to raise a complaint on her behalf on 12 March 2024.
  12. The landlord put scaffolding up along with a protective sheet around the property’s first floor and roof area sometime before May 2024 although the exact date is unknown as the landlord has not provided clear evidence of this.
  13. The landlord issued the resident with its stage 2 response to her complaint on 21 June 2024. It:
    1. Apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered £200 compensation.
    2. Said the property was made secure with boarding and fencing as advised by an external consultancy but offered the resident £150 compensation for the time taken for it to do this.
    3. Told the resident and her son that it was advisable to have home contents insurance in place to cover any damage to personal belongings by the fire.
    4. Apologised to the resident that she felt it had communicated with her and her son in an insensitive manner.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policies and procedures

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states residents are expected to take out adequate home contents insurance for their furniture, decoration, and personal possessions to insure them against accidental damage or loss. The landlord states its policy is not intended to replace or compensate for a resident’s lack of home contents insurance.

The landlord’s handling of securing the resident’s home

  1. We understand the fire caused significant distress to the resident and her son as they lost personal belongings and had to be re-housed for a considerable amount of time. The Ombudsman has not disregarded the impact to the resident and her family from the house fire. However, our assessment has focussed on whether the landlord acted fairly, in line with its legal obligations, policies and procedures and industry best practice following the house fire and when the resident raised concerns with it that it had not secured the property appropriately.
  2. The landlord acted promptly by putting up a fence around the resident’s home on the same day of the fire as it needed to put an immediate measure in place to stop anyone from going near the property due to health and safety. It would not have been appropriate for the landlord to board the property that day as it needed to first confirm it was safe to do so.
  3. The landlord met with the local authority and its own contractor at the resident’s home to assess the condition of the property 5 working days later. This was a prompt response by the landlord as it had to organise the meeting with 2 other parties, and it needed to wait for the building to be accessible following the fire which included the structure and debris cooling down.
  4. The landlord then boarded the ground floor of the property 7 working days after the fire. As it had needed to assess the structural safety of the property and had already placed temporary fencing around it, this was an appropriate response from the landlord. Furthermore, given that it found the gable wall and chimney to be at risk of collapsing, the landlord could not have safely boarded the first floor and roof area at this time and needed to consider the safety of its staff and contractors. It was positive, however, that it used a drone to assess the first floor and roof area instead.
  5. It is unclear when the landlord’s contractor put up scaffolding and protective sheets around the property’s first floor and roof area although picture evidence shows it was before May 2024. Although this was 6 months after the fire, as the landlord had already secured the ground floor and put fencing around the resident’s property, any delay in doing the same to the rest of the property would have had minimal impact in regard to the property being secure. It is also important to note that the landlord would have needed to wait for the structure of the property to be safe before securing the first floor and roof area with scaffolding.
  6. It was appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident’s son not to enter the property once he made it aware he had done so on or before 30 November 2023 and then again in February 2024. It is reasonable to conclude the temporary fencing and boarding of the ground floor along with the general condition of the property acted as an adequate deterrent for anyone attempting to enter the immediate area. The landlord would not have been responsible for the decisions made by the resident, her son or anyone else in attempting to gain access to the property as it had already put appropriate measures in place to minimise the risk of this occurring.
  7. When the resident raised concerns that the property was not secure, the landlord queried this with its contractor who in turn visited the resident’s property to investigate the matter. It explained to the resident and her son the measures it had put in place to secure the property, and it was then able to evidence the ground floor of the property being suitably boarded in March 2024 with photographs taken at the time. This was an appropriate response from the landlord as it took the resident’s concerns seriously and made sure the property remained boarded in line with the advice it had received from its contractor.
  8. The fact that the resident’s son gained access to the property after it was boarded does not necessarily mean there was a failure by the landlord in securing it. In the circumstances of this case, the landlord has provided evidence it secured the property appropriately with boards to the ground floor window and doors and later to the first floor and roof area. It would be possible to force access through these measures if someone wished to do so, but this would not be a failure on the part of the landlord.
  9. The resident and her son said the police had been made aware of people entering the property following the fire. It would be the responsibility of the police to investigate these incidents. As mentioned, the fencing and boards were to act as a deterrent but would not have been able to stop someone who wished to forcefully gain access.
  10. Due to the severity of the fire, the contents of the house were contaminated, and the fire debris were mixed into one which meant all remaining contents had to be disposed of. As the fire was accidental, it was appropriate for the landlord to remind the resident that making a claim against a home contents insurance policy would be the most appropriate mechanism for her to pursue reimbursement for costs associated with accidental damage to personal items due to the fire. This position was also in line with its compensation policy. The landlord was not obliged to compensate the resident for the loss of her personal items.
  11. The landlord could have investigated the resident’s concerns that it had acted insensitively towards her more thoroughly. This includes addressing her complaint that it told her son to “go through the skips for any of his possessions”. It is unclear whether this comment was said by a member of the landlord’s staff as there is no evidence to substantiate this, but it would have been reasonable for the landlord to check with its staff who had been dealing with the fire and check its records to investigate this. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident and is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recognises this is an appropriate form of redress in such circumstances.
  12. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for delays in securing her property following the fire. When the landlord has made an offer, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the offer is fair and reasonable. Our approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance published on our website. The compensation the landlord offered is in line with the amount we would have ordered if it had not made an offer. The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident, but there may be no permanent impact from the failure.
  13. For the reasons set out above, we have found the landlord has made an offer prior to our involvement that suitably resolves the complaint. If it has not already done so, we recommend it pay the resident the £150 compensation offered to her in June 2024.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. It took the landlord 36 working days to respond to the resident’s son’s stage 1 complaint which fell outside of its own published timescales. This was a failure by the landlord which caused inconvenience and distress to the resident and her son.
  2. Whilst the resident’s son was not named on the tenancy and did not have official permission to act on behalf of the resident at the time of the stage 1 complaint, the landlord did not explain to him that it would not be able to share the details of its actions in relation to the fire due to GDPR until it issued him with its stage 1 response. It should have explained this to him much earlier as this would have allowed him to gain authority from the resident which he later did and would have resulted in a more detailed stage 1 response. This was a failure by the landlord which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and her son as it missed an opportunity to provide a thorough response to the complaint with a view working towards a resolution at an earlier date.
  3. The landlord then took 91 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This fell significantly outside of the timescales of 20 working days set out in the Code and was a failure which caused the resident inconvenience and distress. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident that it would need to extend the date for its stage 2 response to her complaint, it did so 86 working days later. This was a further failure by the landlord as it should have informed the resident of the need to extend the complaint within 20 working days.
  4. For the reasons set out above we have found there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint as although it acknowledged the delay in issuing its complaint responses, it failed to advise the resident’s son within a reasonable timeframe that he would need permission to act on her behalf to raise a complaint. This led to a poor-quality stage 1 response which did not fully address his or the resident’s concerns.
  5. However, we will not award increased compensation for this error as the overall compensation offered by the landlord of £200 for complaint handling remains proportionate and fair, taking into account this further error. As above, this amount is in line with what we would have awarded based on our remedies guidance if the landlord had not already made an offer. We do not award set amounts of compensation for each error a landlord makes. Rather it is our approach to assess what a reasonable amount of compensation would be in total, considering the cumulative impact of a landlord’s errors on the resident.
  6. We will order the landlord to apologise to the resident for its handling of the complaint and recommend it complete staff training on complaint handling and specifically the advice it gives to people not named on the tenancy when they raise complaints. We recommend the landlord pay the resident the £200 offered in June 2024 if it has not already done so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that it did not properly secure her home following a house fire.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its handling of her complaint.
  2. The landlord should provide this service with evidence to confirm it has complied with the order above within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord should pay the resident the £150 offered for its handling of the resident’s concerns that it did not properly secure her home following a house fire in June 2024. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.
  2. We recommend the landlord should pay the resident the £200 offered for its complaint handling in June 2024
  3. The landlord should complete staff training on complaint handling and the failures identified in this report.