Leeds City Council (202330754)

Background

1. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had promised to install loft insulation but had failed to do so. She explained that inadequate insulation was contributing to persistent damp and mould issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s request for the installation of loft insulation.
   2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. maladministration in response to the resident’s request for the installation of loft insulation
   2. no maladministration in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property
   3. maladministration in its complaint handling

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the installation of loft insulation

4. The landlord gave a clear explanation of its financial situation and the impact on planned installation of loft insulation. It failed to address the fact that it had not installed insulation before letting the property. It took a long time to install the insulation once it established it was responsible.
    

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property

5. The landlord responded well to reports of damp and mould, organising inspections and remedial action within its timeframes.

The complaint handling

6. The landlord responded within its policy timeframes. It failed to respond to all aspects of the complaint.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. The landlord gave a clear explanation of why it was unable to install insulation at the time of the resident’s complaint. It was transparent about its budget challenges and apologised for the inconvenience she faced. It gave her reassurance that her name would be put onto a waiting list for the work to be completed. This was appropriate and showed it understood that she would have been frustrated by its decision.
8. The landlord failed to act appropriately when it was told that its Voids team had not completed the installation of the insulation when the property was inspected. In the stage 2 escalation, the resident said she had been told the Voids team missed necessary work on the insulation before she moved in. It said it could not comment on this because it did not have access to the Voids team’s records.
9. However, the landlord was already aware that the Voids team had not correctly completed works in the loft. It had confirmed in response to a previous complaint on 24 April 2023 that the Voids team should have inspected the loft but failed to do so. However, it did not say what action it would be taking as a result.
10. The landlord acknowledged it had not met its lettable standards on 29 July 2024. Its standards say any missing or substandard roof space insulation must be replaced before a property is re-let. It chose to install the insulation itself on 17 September 2024, which was positive and showed it recognised its responsibility to address the issue. However, the work was not conducted to a high standard of quality as its Repairs and Maintenance Handbook promises. A second visit was required on 30 January 2025 to make good the installation due to the poor quality of the work. The resident faced additional time and trouble as a result.
11. The resident told the landlord before the complaint that her property was cold. She said she could not understand why the work hadn’t been completed despite it preparing her loft for insulation on 17 May 2023. In her stage 2 escalation she repeated that poor insulation was contributing to her home being cold. It was unreasonable that she was impacted by poor insulation for over a year before it resolved the issue.
12. In line with the landlord’s Financial Remedies Guidance, an award of compensation is appropriate. This is because it had the opportunity to resolve the issue but failed to do so, leading to ongoing frustrations for the resident. We have ordered payment of £250 for the inconvenience caused by its failure to address the insulation when it first learned it had missed the work. The resident faced time and trouble due to the unnecessary delay in improving the insulation in her property.

13. The resident said issues with damp and mould had been ongoing since January 2023. Evidence shows the landlord took appropriate steps in response to the resident’s reports during this period. It conducted an inspection of the property on 16 January 2023 which identified some damp and mould. It completed a mould wash on 10 February 2023.
14. The landlord attended following another report from the resident in May 2023, completing a further mould wash throughout the property on 7 June 2023. The resident did not report further issues with damp and mould until 13 October 2023, shortly before raising her formal complaint.
15. The landlord attended the property to inspect for damp and mould on 19 October 2023, one day after the initial complaint. This was proactive and showed it was taking the report seriously. It was unable to find evidence of damp and mould but raised orders for preventative repair works in the bathroom on 20 October 2023. It showed it was fully assessing the property and taking steps to minimise the risk of it returning as its Damp and Mould Policy says it will.
16. The landlord completed the repair works it had raised on 1 December 2023, 30 days after it raised works. This was a reasonable timeframe and within the 60 day limit for batched repairs set out in its Repairs and Maintenance Handbook. Its overall response to reports of damp and mould was appropriate and in line with its policies.

17. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code.”)
18. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord responded at stage 1 within 6 working days (18 October 2023 to 26 October 2023) which was compliant with the Code which allows 10 working days
    2. the landlord responded at stage 2 within 19 working days (1 November 2023 to 28 November 2023) which was compliant with the Code which allows 20 working days
19. The landlord did not respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint. She mentioned ongoing issues with damp and mould at both stages of the process but it did not respond to these concerns. While we know it had taken action to address damp issues, it was not appropriate that it failed to address her concerns in its formal responses.
20. The resident said in her stage 2 escalation that the landlord had not taken her concerns about damp and mould seriously. She said she spoke to its staff about the damp but was told it hoped the issue got sorted, rather than getting a meaningful response. Its failure to mention her concerns about damp and mould did not show her that it was working to understand her issues or the resolution she wanted as its Compliments and Complaints Policy says it will.
21. The landlord missed several opportunities to offer reassurance to the resident about the works it was conducting, both in its responses and in conversation with her. She was put to distress as a result of its lack of responsiveness. We have ordered it to pay compensation of £100 for the distress caused by its poor complaint handling.

Learning

22. The landlord gave a good explanation for the main issue of funding the work but could have considered what else it knew about the property before responding. It failed to act on what it had learned from a previous complaint. It could consider whether its process of reflecting on complaints is providing value.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord noted that it was unable to comment on the actions of one of its departments due to its inability to access the relevant records. It could reflect on whether it had a robust enough system to allow proper investigation into the issues raised by complainants.

Communication

24. The landlord communicated generally well but missed opportunities to reassure the resident about her concerns around damp and mould. It kept to policy timeframes and was in touch with the resident regularly. It could consider how it could have communicated its plans to resolve the damp and mould better.