West Northamptonshire Council (202228112)

Decision
Case ID	202228112
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	West Northamptonshire Council
Landlord type	Local authority
Occupancy	Secure tenancy
Date	27 February 2026

Background

The resident, who has vulnerabilities, moved to her home through a managed move after a period of living in temporary accommodation and with a relative. Her new home is a new build property. She complained about how the landlord dealt with her temporary move, the condition of her new home, how it managed her personal data, and her request to run a business from her home.

What the complaint is about

The resident’s complaint is about how the landlord dealt with her:
1. Transfer to and request for emergency accommodation.
2. Reports that it did not protect her personal information.
3. Subject access request (SAR).
4. Reports of a data breach.
5. Reports about the condition of the property she moved to.
6. Request to run a business.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

How the landlord dealt with the resident’s:
1. Transfer to and request for emergency accommodation is outside our jurisdiction.
2. Reports that it did not protect her personal information is outside our jurisdiction.
3. SAR is outside our jurisdiction.
4. Reports of a data breach is outside our jurisdiction
We have found there was maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s reports about the condition of the property she moved to.
We have found there was no maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s request to run a business.
We have found there was maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

How the landlord dealt with the transfer to and request for emergency accommodation

We do not investigate matters that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. In this case the complaint about the transfer to and request for emergency accommodation is better dealt with by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), because the LGSCO is better placed to assess this issue. For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate this aspect of the complaint.

How the landlord dealt with reports that it did not protect the resident’s personal information

We do not investigate matters that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. In this case the complaint about the protection of personal information is better dealt with by the Information Commissioner Office (ICO), because the ICO is better placed to assess any issues in relation to protection of personal information. For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate this aspect of the complaint.

How the landlord dealt with the resident’s SAR

We do not investigate matters that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. In this case the complaint about the SAR is better dealt with by the ICO, because the ICO is better placed to assess any issues in relation to data sharing. For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate this aspect of the complaint.

How the landlord dealt with reports of a data breach

We do not investigate matters that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. In this case the complaint about a data breach is better dealt with by the ICO, because the ICO is better placed to assess any issues in relation to the protection of personal information. For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate this aspect of the complaint.

How the landlord dealt with reports about the condition of the property the resident moved to

There were significant record keeping and communication failures in the way the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of defects in her home. It accepted and apologised for these. It offered a significant amount of compensation, which was reasonable in the circumstances. However, in February 2026 the resident told us it did not complete all the repairs it promised to do in its final response.

How the landlord dealt with a request to run a business

The tenancy agreement clearly sets out that a resident cannot run a business without the landlord’s permission. When it found she wanted to run a business from her home, it gave clear advice. It then considered her situation and gave permission subject to reasonable conditions.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s first complaint for 6 months, and we have seen no evidence it acknowledged the first and second complaint. It delayed sending responses at stage 2 and following the complaint panel. This caused the resident inconvenience, including her attendance at a panel meeting.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £2,150 compensation. This is made up of: £2,000 previously offered for failures in how it dealt with reports about the condition of the property she moved to. £150 for failures in how it dealt with her complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than Click or tap to enter a date.
2	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the property. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure it completes the inspection by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. Following this, it must give the resident and us a clear update in writing on what repairs it will do, if they are needed. This must include clear timeframes on when it will complete any work.	No later than Click or tap to enter a date.
3	Further compensation order The landlord must commit in writing to paying the resident further compensation for outstanding repairs, if any are required, once they are completed.	No later than Click or tap to enter a date.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 October 2021	The resident raised concerns about the condition of her new build home.
15 April 2023	The resident complained about temporary accommodation, SAR, and the condition of her new home.
19 May 2023	In its complaint response, the landlord said it had moved the complaint to the final stage of its process so a director could respond. It said it was dealing with her SAR separately. It said it had dealt with her move to temporary accommodation correctly. On the condition of her new home, it said it had not done the 12-month review and there were some “snagging” issues. It apologised for this and offered £700 compensation.
17 September 2023	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said it had not treated her request to use a caravan for a business correctly. She said the problems in her home were not just snagging issues. She wanted significant compensation.
5 December 2023	Following a complaints panel meeting on 22 November 2023, the landlord sent its final complaint response. It said it had given permission for the caravan in a prompt way. It accepted there had been significant delays in dealing with the repairs. It apologised for this and increased the offer of compensation to £2,000.
Referral to the Ombudsman	When she escalated her complaint to us, the resident said the landlord had not recognised the trauma she had faced. She wanted £70,000 compensation, its failings dealt with, and rehousing.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s transfer to and request for emergency accommodation
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident complained about how the landlord dealt with her transfer to and request for emergency accommodation. She said it had not considered the advice of professionals, her safety, or the suitability of accommodation it offered. We have not investigated the complaint due to the matter being within the jurisdiction of the LGSCO.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports that it did not protect her personal information
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident complained about how the landlord dealt with her reports that it did not protect her personal information. She said any member of staff at the landlord could access her personal information. We have not investigated the complaint due to the matter being within the jurisdiction of the ICO.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s SAR
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident complained about how the landlord dealt with her SAR. She said the information provided included information about a neighbour. We have not investigated the complaint due to the matter being within the jurisdiction of the ICO.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of a data breach
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident complained about how the landlord dealt with her reports of a data breach. She said a contractor had breached her personal data. We have not investigated the complaint due to the matter being within the jurisdiction of the ICO.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with reports about the condition of the property the resident moved to
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident told us that her desired outcome was for the landlord to move her to another property. While it is not our role to order a landlord to move a resident to another property, we can assess whether it dealt with the request in line with its policies and explained the reasons for its decisions.

What we have investigated

A resident moving to a new build property should receive a handover pack. This would usually include a schedule on the condition of the property showing any ‘snags’ at the time of handover. The landlord should work with the builder to resolve any snags within the defect liability period. We understand from the landlord’s complaint response that the property was completed in February 2021. We have not seen details of the defect liability period in this case, but in March 2022 the landlord said the property was out of warranty.
We have also not seen a copy of a document showing the condition of the property at the time the resident moved to it on 27 September 2021. Because of this we do not know what snagging issues, if any, were present at this time.
The landlord’s records said the resident reported a crack in the ceiling and the gate not working on 15 October 2021. It said it would fix the gate within 2 weeks and look at the ceiling during the 12-month check, which would be due in February 2022. We have not seen details of a repair to the gate or the 12-month check.
On 2 November 2021 the resident told the landlord that there were “a couple of things missed by the builder” and she would report these. On 8 November 2021, she reported a problem with a blocked pipe and rats accessing her property. It is unclear from the information provided by the landlord what action it took following this report.
The resident reported defects on 18 February 2022. These included leaking and wobbly radiators, the bathroom door not locking, a broken window lock, and cracked plaster. The landlord’s records on 30 March 2022 said the resident telephoned about defects logged when the property was still under warranty but which she said it had not dealt with. Its records said there was confusion about who should deal with the repairs now the property was out of warranty.
We have found there was a failure by the landlord to meet its repair obligations to the resident at this time. This is because we have seen no evidence of repairs done. In addition, the resident claimed it had not dealt with the issues she raised, and it admitted there was confusion about who was dealing with the repairs.
The landlord did a defects survey of the property on 13 October 2022. This was 18 months after the property completion and appears to have been the first survey. Defects found included the bathroom door not closing, a tap making noise, a window difficult to close, an extractor fan not working, cracks in decoration, a problem with the internet connection, a problem with an external door, external wall light not working, evidence of vermin getting access through drains, and damage to a fence.
Following the survey report, the landlord worked with its commercial team and contractors on a schedule of repairs. We have seen no evidence of updates to the resident until it visited her on 7 December 2022 to give her an update. It said she told it she did not want contractors in her house before Christmas. It is unclear from the information provided what repairs the landlord told the resident it would do.
Although it was reasonable for the resident to ask the landlord to delay the repairs until after Christmas, the landlord should have given her updates after the survey. This should have included a clear schedule on what work it would do.
On 21 December 2022 the resident complained about defects in her home. The landlord told her on 20 January 2023 that a contractor would attend on 1 February 2023 to do the agreed repairs. We have not seen what these were.
In its complaint response on 19 May 2023, the landlord accepted the resident had reported “various matters”. It said that following a new build it expected some snagging but said it did not do the 12-month review of the property. It apologised for this and the “considerable time” taken to resolve most of the repairs and the distress caused. It offered £700 compensation.
It is our view that it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge its failings, apologise for these, and offer compensation. However, the response did not give details on the status of the repairs and whether any work was outstanding.
In her complaint escalation on 17 September 2023, the resident said her home had not been signed off and builders left before they completed the work. She said it was over 2 years before it inspected the property. She said there were 48 problems with her home and she wanted significant compensation.
In its final response on 5 December 2023, the landlord accepted the resident reported “numerous defects” from the start of her tenancy until the beginning of 2023. It said after the property was completed, it ended its contract with the builders in May 2021 due to contractual problems. It said it did not have a date when it did the original snagging survey. On the 48 defects found in the survey in October 2022, it said 22 related to her home with the others being in the neighbouring property. It said it had appointed a contractor and had fixed 16 of the defects in January 2023. It accepted it had not fully dealt with the repairs and said it would complete the outstanding work within 2 months. Because of this it apologised and increased the compensation offer to £2,000 to reflect the distress, time and trouble caused.
In February 2026 the resident told us the landlord did not complete some of the repairs following its final response. She said outstanding repairs included electrics, the boiler, the front door, and in the garden. We have not seen a record confirming what repairs the landlords completed after its final response, which was 3 years ago. Because of this we are unable to assess distress and inconvenience caused by reported delays. However, we have made an order on compensation relating to this.
Overall, the evidence shows there were significant record keeping and communication failures in the way the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of defects in her home. She first reported some defects shortly after she moved to the property in September 2021. There is limited evidence that the landlord did anything about these and other defects she reported until 2 years later when she escalated her complaint in September 2023. The landlord accepted it did not do a 12-month check. Some of the defects were minor, but there were some serious defects, including one which allowed rat infestations. Combined, the number of defects, the time taken to do repairs, and limited communication caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
We must consider that the landlord accepted its failings, apologised for these, and offered a significant amount of compensation in the circumstances. However, it appears the landlord did not complete all the repairs it promised. Because of this we have found there was maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s request to run a business
Finding	No maladministration

The resident’s tenancy agreement says she must not use her home or any part of it for a business without the landlord’s written permission. It says it will not give permission if it thinks the business would result in a breach of planning regulations or cause nuisance or annoyance to neighbours.
The landlord visited the resident on 22 December 2021 and discussed her caravan. She told it she was not running a business from the caravan at that time but had applied for a licence from the council. Its records say it told her she needed its permission to run a business from her home, as set out in her tenancy agreement.
On 21 January 2022 the landlord followed up its discussion about the business and caravan in writing. It said it had agreed that as the resident had a parking space, the caravan could stay at her property. It set out conditions for running a business from her home. It said it needed proof of an application to the council and for her to make a request to it for written permission to run her business. It set out other conditions including the number of clients, hours of business, and use of the car park. It said if neighbours made reasonable complaints about the caravan and business, it would withdraw permission. On 11 February 2022, it called the resident and left a voicemail as it had no response to its email.
In her complaint on 15 April 2023, the resident said the landlord did not support her business when she moved to her new home. In its complaint response on 19 May 2023, it said it had given her advice about the terms of her tenancy agreement in December 2021. It said it then wrote to her on 21 January 2022 and gave permission subject to conditions. It said it had acted appropriately and there was a reasonable amount of time between the visit in December 2021 and giving permission in January 2022.
In her complaint escalation on 17 September 2023, the resident said the landlord did not treat her situation correctly. She said it had been her dream job and because she could not use the caravan for business, she had lost money.
In its final response on 5 December 2023, the landlord said it gave her permission a month after finding a potential tenancy breach. It did not uphold her complaint.
We have found that the landlord acted reasonably in how it dealt with the resident’s request to run a business. The tenancy agreement clearly sets out that a resident cannot run a business without the landlord’s permission. When it found that she wanted to run a business from her home, it gave clear advice. It then considered her situation and gave permission, subject to reasonable conditions. Because of this, we have found there was no maladministration in how it dealt with her request.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord also has an optional stage 3 complaints panel, which is not in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
The resident complained on 21 December 2022 about property defects. We have not seen evidence the landlord acknowledged this complaint. It told us that it merged this complaint with a second complaint the resident made on 15 April 2023. However, this was almost 4 months later and was a failure to respond to her original complaint.
In her second complaint on 15 April 2023, the resident complained about her transfer to and request for emergency accommodation, the landlord not supporting her business, data protection issues, and property defects. We have not seen evidence of an acknowledgement.
The landlord’s records on 15 April 2023 said that due to the complexities of the complaint and the importance of the issues the resident had raised, it wanted a director to respond. Because of this it moved the complaint to the final stage of its process.
The landlord sent its response on 19 May 2023, which was outside its timescale for a stage 2 response. It said the resident could ask for an optional stage 3 panel review.
We understand the landlord’s concern to deal with the complaint at a senior level and have noted it offered a stage 3 panel, which would in effect become it stage 2 response. However, this approach is not in line with our Code, which says stage 2 is the landlord’s final response.
The resident asked the landlord to take her complaint to a panel on 17 September 2023. It acknowledged her request on 23 September 2023 and told her that it had 20 days to convene a panel.
The panel met with the resident on 22 November 2023 and issued its response on 5 December 2023. Although the response was issued in a reasonable time after the panel, it took the landlord 2 months to arrange it. We appreciate there are challenges with availability of panel members and the resident, but this was in our view an unreasonable length of time.
Overall, we have found there was maladministration in the way the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint. It did not respond to her first complaint, made in December 2021, until 6 months later. We have seen no evidence it acknowledged the first and second complaint, and responses at stage 2 and following the panel were delayed. It did not apologise for its complaint handling failures in its responses. The way it dealt with the complaint caused the resident inconvenience, including her attendance at a panel meeting. Because of this, and in line with our remedies guidance, the landlord must pay the resident £150 compensation.

Learning

The landlord should ensure it acknowledges and responds to all complaints in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not have a clear record of defects at handover, a 12-month defect review, or repair records. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management provides guidance that can help the landlord with this.

Communication

There were significant gaps in the landlord’s communication with the resident following her reports of defects and complaints.