Leeds City Council (202332540)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332540

Leeds City Council

1 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs at her main property, in particular:
  1. Plasterwork.
  2. Electrical issues.
  3. Mould treatment works.
  4. Kitchen repairs.
2. Move to her temporary property.
3. Reports of repairs at her temporary property.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. At the time of the complaint the resident was living in a property provided by the landlord on a temporary basis while it completed works in her main property. To provide distinction between the 2 different properties that were subjects of the complaint they are referred to as the “main” and “temporary” properties in this report.
The landlord completed an inspection at the resident’s main property in January 2022. It identified various repair issues in the property including plastering work, electrical issues, flooring repairs, and mould treatment works in some of the rooms. The landlord scoped the works needed in February 2022 and attempted to complete the repairs at several visits between February and April 2022. It does not appear the repairs went ahead. The landlord decided to offer the resident temporary accommodation so it could complete the repairs in the main property, in June 2022. The evidence indicates the resident did not move at the time.
The landlord became aware the resident had not moved in September 2022. It offered the resident another temporary property, which she moved to in December 2022.
In January 2023 the resident reported the downstairs toilet in the temporary property was blocked. She also reported a leak from the upstairs bathroom, also thought to be from the toilet. The landlord attended the same day to unblock the downstairs toilet. Following further reports the toilet was blocked in February 2023, the landlord replaced some parts in the downstairs toilet.
The resident made a complaint on 27 February 2023. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs in her main property and had to battle for “years” to get anything done. She said she was unhappy about the landlord’s handling of the temporary move and she felt “forced” away from her property. She also raised concerns about repairs at her temporary property. She said she wanted compensation for the repairs related to the blocked toilet, and the leak from the upstairs bathroom. She said the issues were causing “stress and anxiety”.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 10 March 2023. It explained the history of the resident’s move to temporary accommodation. It explained it had stored the items the resident had asked it to while the works were ongoing. It set out its position that the need to move to temporary accommodation was in the “best interests” of the resident’s family while the works were ongoing. It gave a history of the repairs it had completed at the temporary property and said further repairs for the toilet were booked for 13 March 2023.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint on 27 March 2023. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs in her main, and temporary, properties. She said she “desperately” wanted to move back into the main property. She said it had “discarded” possessions she had asked it not to when she moved out. She said the situation was impacting on her health and wellbeing.
After further reports of issues from the upstairs bathroom in the temporary property, the landlord removed the wet room style shower and put in a bath in April 2023.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 19 May 2023. It outlined the history of the repairs at the main property. It said it initially tried to complete the repairs “room by room”, but this was not possible. It explained the works were delayed by the need to clear items in January 2023, and the need to do another survey as the property had “deteriorated” since the previous survey. It said the “primary cause” of the repair issues was because the resident had not complied with the tenancy agreement for reporting repairs and allowing access. It accepted works should have started, and it was due to have a pre works meeting with its contractor the following week. It said it hoped the works would be completed by July/August 2023. It said the items the resident advised she wanted to keep were put into storage. It said it had taken the appropriate action in relation to the repairs at the temporary property.

Events after the complaints process

The landlord completed works in the resident’s main property in July 2023. In August 2023 it became apparent there was an error with the kitchen layout which it needed to rectify. This was completed in August 2023. In September 2023 there was a further delay as the landlord tried to get the resident’s gas meter prepayment card from her. This was to enable it to uncap the gas so she could move back in. She moved back into the property in late November 2023.
The resident contacted us on 28 November 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she had just moved back into the main property and she was concerned about the quality of some of the repairs. She also raised a concern the landlord had disposed of possessions she had asked it to store.

Assessment and findings

The scope of our investigation

We acknowledge this case was complex with multiple issues the landlord had to respond to. There is evidence there were issues with access to both properties, which contributed to delays. The fact the resident did not move into the first temporary property, when the landlord was of the view she had, also contributed to the delays. We acknowledge the landlord’s efforts in what was a complex and sensitive case. Where we have identified failings below, we have considered the above issues as mitigating factors which have impacted on our overall findings.
When the resident made her complaint she said she had been asking the landlord to complete repairs for “years”. We do not seek to dispute the resident’s claim. However, our Scheme says we may investigate matters that are brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period, usually 12 months. As such, this investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of matters in the 12 months leading up to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of February 2023. This approach was taken in line with that set out in our Scheme.
Throughout her complaint, and when she asked us to investigate, the resident said the landlord’s handling of the repairs had impacted on her mental wellbeing. This aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of our remit. We are not able to determine whether the resident’s health was damaged as a direct result of the landlord’s action or inaction. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. We have considered the way in which the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about health. What we have not done is made a determination on whether the landlord’s actions resulted in personal injury to the resident.
The landlord issued its final complaint response in May 2023. At the time of its stage 2 response, the issues in the case were outstanding. For fairness, we have increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. This is to fully consider the landlord’s handling of the issues raised in the complaint.
When the resident asked us to investigate, she raised concerns about the quality and completeness of the repair works done. As set out above this investigation has focused on the repairs that were outstanding at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. Any repair concerns that were raised after the resident moved back in does not form part of the original complaint. As such they are not within the scope of this investigation. If the resident is unhappy about the landlord’s response to concerns about repairs after she moved back into the property she may wish to complain to the landlord. We may then be able to investigate if she remains unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the main property

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
The landlord’s website states it has 3 categories of responsive repair. For emergency repairs it says it will complete them within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days, and routine repairs within 20 working days. It says for “minor works” which it defines as “small refurbishments” the timescale is agreed based on the size and complexity of the works.
Following its inspection in January 2022, the evidence shows the landlord sought to complete the repairs needed to the property on at least 3 occasions. Its records show the appointments were cancelled or it was unable to access the property. The resident did not dispute its claim about the access issues in early 2022. It is therefore reasonable to conclude its position was accurate. We are not questioning the resident’s reasons for cancelling appointments, but the landlord would not be responsible for any delay this caused. The landlord made attempts to complete the repairs on a “room by room” basis in early 2022. Given the resident wanted to remain in the main property, this was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord then decided it was more appropriate to move the resident to alternative accommodation and provided an alternative property in June 2022. (the reasonableness of this decision is assessed in detail below). The evidence indicates the landlord became aware the resident had not moved out in September 2022 when it sought to scope the works. This indicates the landlord was not proactive in seeking to progress the repairs for 3 months after it thought the resident had moved out. This may have contributed to the overall delay. There was a further delay in the need to seek another property for the resident to move in to. It is reasonable to conclude this process would have happened sooner had it sought to progress with the repairs.
The resident moved into the temporary property in late December 2022. But the works did not start until late May/early June 2023. (the exact date is unclear). We acknowledge that some of the delay was outside of the landlord’s control, as it needed to do further clearance works and another inspection. However, a 5 month overall delay for the works starting was unreasonable. The resident was evidently distressed at having to live away from her home. The landlord’s failure to progress the works in a reasonable timeframe may have increased the distress she experienced.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was silent on its progress with the repairs to the main property. This inconvenienced the resident as she had explicitly expressed concerns about its handling of the matter in her complaint. She was left not knowing the latest position on the repairs or when the landlord hoped they would be complete. This was unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting right the error and gave a detailed history of the repairs. It also set out when it hoped to complete the repairs by. However, it was inappropriate it did not offer compensation for the lengthy delay. It missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident.
The landlord explained it had referred the resident to its tenancy support service in its stage 2 complaint response. This is evidence it appropriately considered the resident’s concerns the situation was impacting on her health and wellbeing. It was also reasonable for the landlord to use the complaint response to remind the resident of her responsibilities under the tenancy agreement to report repairs and to allow access for repairs. Considering the evidence available for this investigation, this was proportionate.
There was a further delay in the resident being able to move back into the property due to an error with the kitchen layout. This error contributed to the delay and inconvenienced the resident.
The evidence shows the further delay caused by the gas meter issue was outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord went beyond what could reasonably be expected of it by negotiating with the resident’s energy provider to write off the debt on the gas meter. We have also seen evidence it cleared £173 of debt on the resident’s electricity meter. We consider this an offer of redress made to the resident. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer to install carpets in recognition of the further delays around this time.
We have determined the landlord made the following offers of redress:
1. Clearing the electric meter debt (£173).
2. Installing carpets in the resident’s property (£1,363).
The landlord’s offers of redress listed above were made after the end of the complaints process. This impacts on the degree to which the offers put right the errors identified above. It is our role to assess the landlord’s handling of the complaint through its complaints process. If the landlord does not offer reasonable redress during its complaints process but makes an appropriate offer after the complaints process has ended, we may find that there has been maladministration by the landlord as it did not do enough to resolve the complaint during its complaints process. We have therefore determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
Our remedies guidance sets out that orders for over £1,000 are appropriate where failures accumulate over a significant period of time, causing significant distress and inconvenience to the resident, as in this case. Considering the redress the landlord has offered the resident, we have decided no further orders for compensation are needed. However, we order the landlord to conduct a review into its handling of the repairs. This is to identify points of learning to prevent similar errors happening again.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s move to her temporary property

The landlord’s decant (the term used in the housing industry for temporary moves) policy states it will offer the resident a “like for like” size property where possible. The policy states it will book removals and storage with contractors on behalf of the resident ahead of the move. The policy is silent on its approach to the storage and disposal of possessions.
The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 requires the owner of goods left on a property owned by someone else to collect them within a specified period, or the goods may be sold or disposed of. This is known as a “tort notice”. The notice must be formal and written, including a description of the goods.
The evidence shows the resident wanted to remain in her main property and did not want the temporary move. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to attempt to complete the repairs on a room-by-room basis. When it became apparent it was unable to progress with the works with the resident still in the property, it was appropriate to offer a temporary move. We acknowledge that having to move away from her home was distressing for the resident. However, considering the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to move the resident temporarily so it could complete essential repairs.
When the resident raised concerns about feeling “forced” to move the landlord appropriately set out its position in its complaint responses. It explained its position the move was appropriate in the circumstances to ensure it could complete the works. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the matter. However, the landlord explained its position with consistency. It also showed empathy for the distress the need to move caused. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord offered to store some of the resident’s possessions that could not be taken to the temporary property. This was a supportive approach. It is accepted the resident asked the landlord to store certain items and said it could dispose of some items. We have seen text messages between the resident and landlord which confirm this. The resident raised concerns in her stage 2 complaint the landlord had disposed of some personal possessions she had asked it to store. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not address this matter in any detail. In response to the resident’s concern it stated: “As also agreed, personal belongings and items that you wanted to retain were moved into storage with our internal service provider”.
We acknowledge the resident’s complaint was not specific about what items it had disposed of. However, there is no evidence the landlord sought to investigate the matter further. It was unreasonable it did not seek further information from the resident. The landlord did not give this concern due consideration. The resident was evidently distressed at the alleged disposal of her personal items she had wanted to keep. The landlord’s failure to engage with the issue in a meaningful way may have increased the distress she experienced. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s poor record keeping about this matter led to its failure to address it appropriately in its stage 2 complaint response.
We asked the landlord about whether it completed an inventory of the resident’s items it stored. The landlord supplied internal emails from April 2023 where it listed it the items it stored which included:
1. 2 bikes.
2. 1 bed.
3. 1 mattress.
4. 1 wardrobe.
5. A mixed variety of clothes.
It also said it was unable to create an inventory of the items the resident kept in the store cupboard as it was unable to get in. The landlord provided us with further clarification of its position that the resident’s partner (who it said had consent to act on the resident’s behalf) confirmed it could dispose of items. It has provided evidence of text messages from the resident that said all items put in certain rooms should be put into storage and everything else could be disposed of.
We acknowledge the landlord was trying to meet the resident at the property to discuss the disposal/storage with her. The evidence provided indicates she did not attend the meeting with the landlord. This complicated the matter. But, it was inappropriate for the landlord to rely on text messages alone when disposing of the resident’s items. While we acknowledge the resident had given permission for her partner to discuss matters with the landlord, it was inappropriate for the landlord to not seek further clarification with the resident (who was the named tenant) about disposal/storage of possessions.
It was unreasonable the landlord did not create a full inventory of the items it was disposing of, and the items it was storing, in line with accepted best practice and its responsibilities to follow tort procedures. The resident now disputes the landlord’s position and has raised concerns it disposed of items she asked it to keep. We acknowledge the challenging circumstances of this case, and the condition of the property meant it was difficult to create a full inventory. However, the landlord’s approach was not as thorough as it should have been. We recommend the landlord amends its decant policy to include procedures for the disposal/storage of possessions in line with tort legislation and accepted best practice. We also recommend it provides training for its staff around accepted best practice for the disposal/storage of residents’ possessions.
Had the landlord created a detailed inventory of all items it was keeping/disposing of it would then have had relevant records to refer to when the resident raised her concerns. Due to the lack of available records, it is not possible to determine whether the landlord disposed of items the resident asked it to keep. The landlord failed to follow the appropriate procedure for tort notices.
Considering these errors we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s move to her temporary property. Our remedies guidance states that up to £100 may be appropriate to put things right where a landlord’s errors were of a short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. We have determined an order for £100 is appropriate to put things right for the resident regarding the storage of items while she was in temporary accommodation.

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the temporary property

When the resident reported the downstairs toilet was blocked and backing up on 2 January 2023, the landlord attended to the repair the same day. This was in line with the timeframes for an emergency repair, which was appropriate. When the resident reported the issue returned on 16 January 2023, the landlord attended again as an emergency appointment. This is evidence it treated the report with the appropriate urgency. There was not another report for another month. The landlord was entitled to consider its repairs had resolved the issue until the resident reported it again.
When the resident reported the downstairs toilet issue again the evidence shows the landlord attended to unblock the toilet on the same day. At this time, it also ordered parts as the issue was evidently persisting. It fitted the parts 3 days later. This was within its timeframe for an urgent repair and appropriate in the circumstances.
The resident reported the upstairs toilet was leaking on 16 January 2023. The evidence shows the landlord attended the same day. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence the landlord treated it as an emergency repair. The landlord found the toilet was not leaking, and there was no evidence of an escape of water at its visit. It was therefore appropriate to close the repair
It later became apparent the issue was not a toilet leak, but an issue with the wet room style flooring. The landlord identified this as the issue in March 2023.The landlord raised a repair to remove the wet room style shower and replace it with a shower over a bath. The landlord completed the bathroom repairs on 14 April 2023. This was within a reasonable timeframe and within the 20-working day policy timeframe for routine repairs.
The evidence shows following a leak from the bathroom above the kitchen light needed reinstating. The landlord’s repair records indicate the repair was first raised on 18 February 2023 but was cancelled by its contractor. The repair records show the repair was completed on 7 March 2023. We acknowledge this was not a lengthy delay. However, considering the potential hazard a lack of kitchen light posed, the delay was unreasonable. The resident was inconvenienced by the lack of kitchen light for 17 days.
The landlord’s complaint responses gave a history of most of the repairs completed at the temporary property. It appropriately set out for the toilet leaks and bathroom repair it had completed the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. However, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response lacked detail about the kitchen light issue. It simply stated the light was reinstated. It failed to acknowledge the delay in completing what it should have classed as an urgent repair. This lacked transparency and the landlord missed an opportunity to show learning and put things right.
Considering the errors identified above we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs at her temporary property. We have determined an order for £100 is appropriate to put things right for the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance, as set out above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her main property.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s move to her temporary property.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in her temporary property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this decision the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
2. Pay the resident £200 in compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s move to her temporary property.
  2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the repairs at the temporary property.
Within 8 weeks of this decision the landlord is ordered to conduct a review into its handling of the repairs in this case. It must consider the failings identified in this report and consider how it can prevent similar failings happening again. The landlord should share a copy of the report with the resident and us.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord:
1. Amends its decant policy to include procedures for the disposal/storage of possessions in line with torts law and accepted best practice.
2. Provides training for its staff around torts law and accepted best practice for the disposal/storage of residents’ possessions.