Nottingham City Council — case 202322833

Decision Case ID 202322833 Decision type Investigation Landlord Nottingham City Council Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 06 February 2026 Background The resident reported issues with the bedroom and living room doors on 14 July 2023 and requested that the landlord replace them. The landlord found the doors to be in good condition and therefore declined to replace them. The resident raised a formal complaint about this. What the complaint is about The landlord’s handling of: Repairs to the internal doors.

The complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found: No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the doors. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Handling of repairs to the doors The landlord acted reasonably. It was entitled to decline a door replacement as the door was in good condition. It arranged a repair in line with its policy and the tenancy agreement and effectively communicated its position to the resident.

Complaint Handling The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses were provided inside its policy timeframes and the Complaint Handling Code. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 24 January 2023 The repairs history records that after the resident reported damage to 2 internal doors, an operative attended and identified age‑related deterioration, affecting doors in an upstairs bedroom and the living room. 14 July 2023 The resident raised a complaint to the landlord.

The resident reported that he was dissatisfied for 2 reasons. Firstly, that the landlord sent a Craft Worker to his property despite his previous complaint about this individual and his clear request that the worker should not return. Secondly, during the appointment, the resident did not initially recognise the worker due to the mask he was wearing. The resident later observed him cutting the bottom of a door in a way that would create an unnecessary gap. When the resident questioned this, explaining that the door had been the correct size and was not catching on the carpet, the Craft Worker allegedly responded negatively, began banging on the door, and left the property without completing work.

The resident further stated that the worker had also interfered with the door frame, despite no repairs being required. 19 July 2023 The landlord sent its stage 1 response. Following an inspection by both the Repairs Service Officer (RSO) and a joiner, they found that the flush door fitted correctly and had been capped for the carpet and underlay. It confirmed the living room door required only a repair rather than a replacement. Although the officers offered to complete the repair during the visit, the resident declined as he wanted a new door, as he had been previously told.

The landlord apologised for the incorrect information previously given, clarified that the living room door did not meet the criteria for replacement, and reiterated that its service focused on repairs where feasible. The landlord confirmed that it would arrange for a joiner to complete the repair if the resident still wished to proceed. Based on these findings, the landlord partially upheld the complaint. 15 September 2023 The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2.

He disputed the landlord’s position that the living room door did not require replacement and that the bedroom flush door fitted correctly. The resident stated that the bedroom door had fitted properly until the Craft Worker cut the bottom, which created a visible gap. The resident also reported that the landlord booked an appointment for 14 September 2023 between 8.00am and 6.00pm, which the resident understood to be for replacing both doors. However, the landlord later closed the job stating that no work was required, resulting in the resident unnecessarily using a day of annual leave.

The resident sought replacement of both the living room and bedroom doors. 26 September 2023 The landlord sent its stage 2 response which summarised the issues with the doors over the past 2 years. It said that photographs taken during visits showed that the doors were in good condition and functional. After reviewing all available evidence, the landlord concluded that the doors were fit for purpose and that a replacement was not justified. The landlord determined that it would not replace doors where changes to flooring created a gap.

Referral to the Ombudsman The resident brought the complaint to us on 3 October 2023 as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. In a phone call with us in January 2026, the resident informed us that there are no current issues with his home. 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 The landlord’s handling of repairs to the doors. Finding No maladministration What we have not looked at The evidence shows that issues regarding the doors have been present since 2021. We do not investigate matters the resident did not raise with the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable period. Therefore, we have only considered the landlord’s actions during the 12 months leading up to the resident raising his complaint. In this case, the resident mentioned a loss of wages.

We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the court, tribunal, or other procedure. This is because we do not have the authority to decide responsibility or award damages for the loss of earnings. For these reasons, we have not considered the resident’s request for damages for his loss of wages. What we have looked at The Repairs and Maintenance Service Standards policy states that for priority repairs, the landlord aims to attend these repairs at the first available appointment convenient to the resident, typically within 7 days of the repair being reported.

Where the repair involves a renewal, the landlord aims to complete the work within a maximum of 30 working days. The landlord also seeks to complete as many repairs as possible at the first visit. Example of a priority repair includes minor repairs to internal walls, doors, skirting boards, etc. In June 2023, the landlord arranged a repair with the notes stating, ‘new internal flush doors due to damage’. The landlord concluded that the trade colleague incorrectly raised this appointment.

This led the resident to believe his doors would be replaced. The landlord’s contractors attended on 14 July 2023 to repair the doors, but they found the doors to be defect free and in good working order. Therefore, the landlord declined to replace the doors. While it was unfortunate the resident had previously been told the doors would be replaced, the landlord was entitled to rely on its qualified contractors when they deemed the door to be in good working order. The landlord attended on 14 September as a repair was raised for the doors and it again noted the doors were without defect.

Where a repair is achievable and economically viable, the landlord has no obligation to undertake a replacement. Following its investigation, the landlord determined that the doors were fit for purpose and offered a repair for the door that required remedial work. The landlord accepted it had previously raised the resident’s expectations that the doors would be replaced. However, it apologised for this and corrected its position to the resident following the visit in July. It appropriately reiterated its stance through its complaint responses.

We found no maladministration because the landlord attended to inspect the doors, confirmed that the doors did not require replacement which was in line with its policy and communicated this effectively with the resident. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding No maladministration In the landlord’s complaint policy, it states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. For stage 2 complaints, it will respond within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.

This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord provided its stage 1 and 2 responses in line with the Code and its policy. However, it is important to note that the landlord should have addressed the resident’s concerns about the Craft Worker in writing in the stage 1 response. However, the evidence shows that the landlord did address this matter in person with the resident and therefore, the detriment in not responding to this point does not lead to an adverse finding.

Learning The landlord should ensure that it responds in writing to all complaint points so there is clarity in its investigation. Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord should ensure clear notes are left after each inspection and repair to establish cause, action and resolution clearly. Communication The landlord should ensure all appointment bookings are communicated clearly to ensure the resident is aware of the reason for the booking and what they can expect during it.