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.

St Albans City and District Council (202418681)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418681

St Albans City and District Council

26 August 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 repair issues in the property.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the investigation.

Background

  1. The resident is the tenant of the property which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property. The resident’s tenancy started in October 2015.
  2. The property is a 3 bedroom house.
  3. On 10 June 2024 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about outstanding repairs in the property. In summary the resident said:
    1. Despite reporting many repair issues to the landlord since July 2022 it had not taken action to resolve them.
    2. The landlord must undertake the following repair work:
      1. Reseal windows in living room.
      2. Repair water damage to living room ceiling.
      3. Replace damaged wallpaper in hallway and bedrooms.
      4. Replace floorboards and lino in bathroom.
      5. Repair hole in loft wall.
      6. Replace cracked paving in front and back garden.
      7. Repair cracked walls in front and back garden.
      8. Repair side and top gates.
      9. Repair all external doors.
    3. Due to the landlord not completing the repairs she had to replace the carpets in the living room, on the stairs and in the bedrooms. She had also had to throw away lots of clothes.
  4. The resident concluded the complaint by confirming that the repairs subject of the complaint were in addition to the repairs raised as part of the disrepair claim which she had initiated in February 2023.
  5. On 17 June 2024 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. In summary the landlord said:
    1. The resident entered into a disrepair claim with it on 1 February 2023. Since this time it had been working with the resident’s solicitor to resolve the claim. This included completing works following an independent inspection of the property. Most of the work had been completed however 4 repair items were outstanding as the areas were not clear for the works to proceed. The 4 repair items were:
      1. Renew kitchen floor.
      2. Renew kitchen ceiling.
      3. Repair broken socket in kitchen.
      4. Renew bedroom ceiling.
    2. It would request that the 4 repair items were dealt with “immediately” for full resolution of the disrepair claim.
    3. It had settled both the damages and costs with the resident’s solicitor as per the pre-action protocol.
    4. Any new repair issues should be reported to it through its repairs line.
    5. Decoration was a tenant’s responsibility.
  6. On 9 July 2024 the resident requested to escalate the complaint. In summary the resident said:
    1. She disagreed that the areas were not clear to allow the repairs to be completed in the kitchen and bedroom. The repairs were not completed during the first appointment as the attending contractor was not aware of the work to be completed. The repairs were also not completed during the second appointment as the correct tradesperson had not been scheduled.
    2. The repairs listed in the complaint were not new as she had been reporting them for several years.
  7. On 6 August 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2, final, response. In summary the landlord said:
    1. It had reviewed the notes and photographs for the appointments relating to the 4 repair items outstanding from the disrepair claim. The records showed that the areas were not clear enough for the attending operatives to complete the repairs. The electrician who attended the second appointment on 29 April 2024 requested that plasterers also attend at the same time to allow for the repairs to be completed. It would reorder the repair to allow both trades to attend at the same time.
    2. As part of the disrepair claim the property was inspected by an independent surveyor. The surveyor also had access to the property’s complete repairs history. All repair issues identified for the property were included in the schedule of works agreed with the resident’s solicitor. The repairs identified from the inspection had been completed with the exception of the ceiling works.
    3. All new repair issues should be reported to it via its repairs line.
  8. The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer her complaint to us if she was not happy with its decision.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repair issues in the property

  1. We acknowledge the resident sets out that she first reported the repair issues subject of the complaint in June 2022 and says the landlord did not take action to put things right at that time. While we note that the resident’s concerns are long-standing, the resident referred her concerns to us for consideration after receipt of the landlord’s final response dated 6 August 2024.
  2. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment will consider events from summer 2023, which is approximately 12 months before the date of the resident’s stage 1 complaint which she later referred to us. This is because as the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the earlier actions taken by the landlord to address those matters.
  3. We note that in response to the draft letter of claim the landlord instructed an independent expert to inspect the property for issues of disrepair. The inspection took place on 5 July 2023. From the evidence we can see that the repair issues which the resident raised in the complaint dated June 2024 were not items which were included within the schedule of works agreed in respect of the disrepair claim.
  4. Between summer 2023 and June 2024 the resident’s communication with the landlord was mostly regarding start dates for the disrepair works to commence. We have however identified that on several occasions the resident did reference some of the items subject of the complaint. For example on 15 June 2023 the resident reported that the concrete paving slabs were broken and on 16 October 2023 and 13 November 2023 the resident reported problems with the seals around the windows and doors. Despite raising these concerns we cannot see that the landlord responded directly to the resident regarding these issues. This is unsatisfactory and was a missed opportunity by the landlord to explore the issues which the resident had reported.
  5. In response to the complaint, and the repairs detailed, the landlord advised the resident to contact its repairs line and noted that decoration was a tenant’s responsibility. In our opinion this was not a reasonable response. As the repair issues raised within the complaint were extensive, totalling 9 items, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have inspected the property. There is no evidence that the landlord did this.
  6. An inspection would have enabled the landlord to accurately assess the situation and to determine what repairs, if any, were its responsibility to complete. It was not reasonable for the landlord to suggest that the repair issues were not its responsibility as they were not identified as part of the disrepair claim and related to decoration which would fall outside of its repairing obligations.
  7. The evidence shows that following the landlord’s stage 2 response on 6 August 2024 the resident continued to report the repair issues subject of the complaint. This included on 27 August 2024, 23 September 2024 and 6 December 2024. Despite the resident’s contact we cannot see that the landlord arranged an inspection or appointments for the repair issues to be reviewed or fixed following the contacts. This is unsatisfactory. The resident’s repeated contacts should have initiated a proactive response by the landlord to get the matters resolved.
  8. In an update to us in August 2025 the landlord confirmed its position in relation to the issues subject of the complaint. In summary the landlord said:
    1. The living room windows did not require resealing as they were in working order.
    2. It was not responsible for making good the water damage to the living room ceiling as decoration was a tenant’s responsibility.
    3. It was not responsible for replacing the wallpaper in the hall, bedrooms or on the stairs as decoration was a tenant’s responsibility.
    4. The floor in the toilet did not require replacing as nothing was wrong with the covering or sub floor.
    5. Repair appointments were scheduled to fix the hole in the loft wall on 18 July 2025 and 5 August 2025 however the resident had refused the works.
    6. A work order was pending to address the cracked slabs.
    7. Repair appointments were scheduled to fix the cracked walls on 18 July 2025 and 5 August 2025 however the resident had refused the works.
    8. A work order was pending to address the gates.
    9. The external doors did not require repair or replacement as they were in working order.
  9. Despite us asking the landlord for evidence to support its response to each of the issues subject of the complaint it did not do so. It is therefore unclear how the landlord reached its conclusions regarding the windows, toilet floor, redecoration and external doors. This is unsatisfactory as a landlord should keep sufficient records to document its decisions. Further we note that while repairs had been scheduled or are pending in respect of the hole in the loft wall, cracked slabs, cracked walls and gates these issues have been outstanding since at least June 2024, the date of the complaint. This is a significant period of time. This is unsatisfactory. This shows a lack of oversight by the landlord in responding to and addressing the issues. The resident confirmed to us in August 2025 that all repair issues subject of the complaint were outstanding.
  10. In responding to the complaint the landlord focused on the 4 outstanding repair items from the disrepair claim. The landlord has provided evidence that the issues have been resolved – kitchen socket on 29 April 2024, kitchen and bedroom ceiling on 6 December 2024 and kitchen floor on 17 July 2025.
  11. With the exception of the kitchen socket, it is not clear why the repairs to replaster the kitchen and bedroom ceiling and replace the kitchen floor were not progressed in response to the complaint as the landlord committed to doing. The plastering and flooring were therefore outstanding for an additional 11 months following the end of the complaint procedure. This is unsatisfactory.
  12. We note that there is a dispute over the first appointment to replaster the kitchen ceiling in December 2023. We acknowledge that it is the landlord’s position that the repair did not go ahead due to the area not being clear and it is the resident’s position that it did not go ahead as the correct operatives were not in attendance. As we were not present during the appointment we cannot determine what actually happened. We must therefore consider the available evidence to decide with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the appointment was reasonable. The landlord’s records of the appointment confirms that the job was “abandoned” and the appointment needed to be rebooked for an electrician and plasterer to be in attendance. In our opinion the landlord’s record does not provide sufficient detail confirming why the appointment was abandoned and no work was undertaken. This is unsatisfactory.
  13. There was maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports of repair issues to the property. This is because the landlord:
    1. Did not take appropriate steps to consider, investigate or address the repair issues subject of the complaint.
    2. Delayed in completing the outstanding repair issues it had identified in its own complaint responses despite committing to dealing with them “immediately”.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. While the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was timely its response to the issues subject of the complaint was unsatisfactory. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decision.
  2. In responding to the complaint the landlord did not investigate the resident’s concerns that the repair issues she listed had not been addressed since 2022. In responding to the complaint the landlord should have demonstrated that it had considered the history of the repair issues reported to determine if there had been any failings in the repairs service it had provided in relation to those specific issues. In not doing so the resident was left without an explanation to what had or had not happened. It also suggests that the landlord was not fully focused on resolving the complaint and it was therefore a missed opportunity to put things right at an earlier time.
  3. In responding to the complaint the landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns regarding damage to her personal items. This is unsatisfactory. The landlord should have explained why it did or did not consider that it was responsible for the reported damage. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have signposted the resident to its insurers so that it could consider her claim.
  4. There was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling. This is because the landlord’s response did not appropriately address the repair issues which were the subject of the complaint or address the resident’s concerns regarding damage to her personal items.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds:
    1. Maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports of repair issues in the property.
    2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, provide a written apology to the resident in respect of the failings identified by this investigation.
  2. The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, pay the resident a total of £850 compensation. This figure comprises:
    1. £500 for not providing an appropriate repairs service in relation to the repair issue subject of the complaint and therefore the distress, inconvenience and uncertainty the resident will have experienced as a result.
    2. £250 for the delay in completing the outstanding repairs in relation to the disrepair claim and therefore the distress and inconvenience the resident will have experienced as a result.
    3. £100 for not providing a comprehensive complaint response and therefore the uncertainty the resident will have experienced as a result.
  3. The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, inspect the property for any repair issues and to ensure that all repairs recently undertaken have been completed to a satisfactory standard. Following the inspection the landlord should write to the resident to confirm the outcome of the inspection, detailing any next steps with timescales. The landlord should provide us with a copy of its letter.
  4. The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, provide the resident with details of its insurers. This will provide the resident with the opportunity to make a claim for damages to her personal damages which she believes is due to the repair service provided by the landlord. The landlord should provide us with a copy of its letter.