Leicester City Council (202429181)

Decision
Case ID	202429181
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Leicester City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	11 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat on the thirteenth floor of a purpose-built block. The resident told us her husband is disabled and has mental health conditions. The resident complained about the lift breaking and her request for accommodation suitable for her husband.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s request to be rehoused.
   2. lift repairs.
   3. the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused is outside of our jurisdiction.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of lift repairs.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord completed repairs to the lift but this was not within its emergency timescale. It failed to explain the delays.
7. The landlord delayed raising a stage 1 complaint. This was not in line with its policy or the Code.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 08 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 made up as follows: £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of lift repairs. £100 for its poor complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 08 January 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
All staff are trained on its complaint policy and procedure to ensure complaints are processed according to its policy.
The landlord to contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities that should be recorded for the household, to ensure its records are accurate and up to date.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 May 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about a lift breakdown that day. She said it was very hard for her husband to use the stairs. The resident said the engineer did not arrive and they had to book a hotel.
6 June 2024	The landlord told the resident her complaint had been passed on to the service team to look into the matter.
21 August 2024	The resident followed up on her complaint. She said her housing applications had been rejected. She requested suitable accommodation for her husband’s health needs. The resident also asked for compensation for the inconvenience caused by the lift breakdown.
4 September 2024	The landlord responded at stage 1. It said: The outcome of its Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment in January 2024 was that her husband was suitably housed. It advised the resident to send supporting evidence from appropriate mental health specialists to support the application for rehousing. It had advised the resident on 2 September to contact her GP and OT team to be reassessed. It was sorry the lift was out of service on 2 May 2024. It repaired this the next day.
28 September 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the lift was not working again and it would take 4 hours to repair. The resident said she had made several housing applications. She said her husband had been suicidal due to inappropriate housing and harassment from security and concierge.
28 October 2024	The landlord responded at stage 2. It said: It provided temporary accommodation for the resident while the lift was broken on 28 September 2024. It was fixed on 30 September 2024. It apologised if the resident felt harassed by the security team. It asked security questions to ensure entry for residents only. The resident had advised her husband’s health had deteriorated. It recommended the resident contacted the OT team for reassessment. To support her application to be rehoused, it requested medical documentation to confirm her husband required wheelchair access.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s final response. She brought the complaint to us for investigation. The resident told us she wanted the landlord to rehouse her to a property on the ground floor due to her husband’s medical needs.

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 handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

8. The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.
9. In her complaint, the resident asked to be rehoused in accommodation adapted for her husband’s disability. She said her husband had physical and mental health conditions and she had made previous housing applications. We can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as the landlord under a licence, lease or a social housing tenancy. In this case, the council was not acting in this capacity because its rehousing application for medical reasons was being considered in its function as a local authority and not in its function as a landlord.
10. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing for medical reasons or because of a disability, and the assessment of such applications. Therefore, the resident’s rehousing request is more appropriately considered by the LGSCO.

Complaint	The handling of lift repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

11. The resident told us the situation had a detrimental impact on her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
12. In her complaint, the resident said the lift had broken down on 2 May 2024. She said she was told at 7pm that it would take 2 hours to repair but it took longer. It was unclear from the evidence the landlord provided when on the 2 May 2024 the lift was reported. The repair was completed the following day. The landlord confirmed to us that its response times for lift repair attendance is 2 hours when emergency attendance is required to ensure service can run. The repair records provided by the landlord did not show the time it attended, or details of the problem. Its stage 1 response stated it attended on the 3 May 2024. Therefore, it failed to attend within 2 hours.
13. The evidence shows the landlord was aware of the resident’s husband’s physical and mental health vulnerabilities. Given the reported vulnerabilities, the landlord would be expected under the Equality Act 2010, to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the needs of the resident and that it had responded to those needs. It failed to show it had considered any support requirements or reasonable adjustments the resident may have needed when the lift was broken overnight on 2 May 2024.
14. At stage 2, the resident raised further concerns about the lift breaking down again on 28 September 2024. She said she had been told it would take 4 hours to be fixed. The evidence provided by the landlord stated the lift was out of service on 30 September 2024 and no fault found when an engineer attended. From the records provided it was unclear when the lift was reported as broken and when the landlord first attended. This was poor record keeping. Overall, the landlord did not attend to this repair within its timescales.
15. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the resident had told it during a call on 21 October 2024 that it had provided the resident with temporary accommodation in September 2024 when the lifts could not be fixed. This was a reasonable action to take because the resident had told the landlord her husband is disabled and it was very hard for him to use the stairs. This showed the landlord taking steps to assist the resident and make reasonable adjustment. Although it is noted that the landlord’s response was confirming what the resident had told it, rather than explaining the action it took. The landlord did not provide any records of when the accommodation was booked or its communication with the resident about the lift.
16. At stage 1, the landlord said it could not provide any compensation because the resident still had access to her flat. The landlord failed to consider that because of his protected characteristics the resident could not practically access his home. This response lacked empathy and understanding. It acknowledged the household had stayed with a relative while the lift was broken between 2 and 3 May 2024. It failed to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience this caused, or the resident’s reports that her husband had been left waiting outside for the lifts to be fixed.
17. At stage 2, the landlord apologised that the lift was out of order. However, it did not explain the reasons for the delay to the repairs on 28 September 2024. It again said the resident had access to her flat during this time. However, the resident’s flat is on the thirteenth floor. The resident had told the landlord in her initial complaint that her husband had protected characteristics and it was very hard for her husband to use the stairs. The landlord had also provided temporary accommodation.  However, its stage 2 response failed to acknowledge the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The resident told us that her husband had to spend long periods of time in his car as a result of the lift breakdowns.
18. The repair records for the lift during the time of the resident’s complaint showed the landlord attended to reports and repaired lifts on the same day on 5 July and 18 July 2024. The records stated it also attended to reports on 14 May, 18 June, and 1 July 2024 where no faults were found on attendance. The landlord’s records did not show how it communicated with the resident on these occasions.
19. Overall, the resident experienced significant distress and inconvenience when the lift broke down in May and September 2024. The distress and inconvenience was aggravated because of the resident’s husband’s protected characteristics. It did not repair the breakdowns within its timeframes for lift repairs. The landlord provided temporary accommodation in September 2024 while the lift was out of service. The breakdowns were short in duration. However, its complaint responses did not acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident or explain the reasons why the repairs took longer.

Complaint	Complaint handling.
Finding	Maladministration

20. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024 sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s complaints policy complies with the timescales in the Code.
21. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had received the resident’s complaint on 19 August 2024. However, the resident made a complaint on 2 May 2024. The resident told us she received an acknowledgement on 4 May 2024. We have not seen this. The evidence shows she continued to follow up on this complaint multiple times between May and August 2024. On 19 August 2024, the landlord told the resident it contacted her about the lift on 8 July 2024 and closed the complaint. The landlord did not provide evidence of its contact with the resident on 8 July 2024. However, she told the landlord multiple times that she was waiting for a response to her complaint. It failed to raise a stage 1 complaint here in line with its policy or the Code. This resulted in a protracted complaints process for the resident.
22. The landlord’s records show it raised a stage 1 complaint on 19 August 2024. It responded at stage 1 on 4 September 2024. This was 87 working days after the resident made her complaint.
23. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 September 2024. There was no evidence the landlord acknowledged this. The landlord responded on time on 28 October 2024.
24. In her complaint in May 2024, the resident said her husband had been physically removed from the office while waiting for lift repairs. There was no evidence of it responding to this. In her escalation she said her husband had experienced harassment from the security team and concierge. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised if the resident felt harassed by the security team. It confirmed the resident was asked security questions to make sure entry to the building was only provided to residents. However, the evidence provided by the landlord did not show it had fully investigated the resident’s concern about staff conduct. As such it failed to address all parts of the complaint in line with the Code.
25. In its stage 2 response, the landlord provided our details for the resident to escalate the matter if she remained unhappy. However, it should also have included the details of the LGSCO. This is because part of her complaint was about her request to be rehoused for medical reasons and a disability. It is noted the landlord included a link to its website which included details for our service and the LGSCO.
26. The landlord failed to acknowledge or remedy its delay in raising the stage 1 complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord did not provide repair reports from the resident about the lifts, or its communication with the resident about the repair. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance the landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.

Communication

28. The landlord’s communication about the complaint was poor. The resident had to take the time and trouble to follow up multiple times. It should ensure staff are familiar with the requirements of the Code, particularly the importance of responding within the prescribed timescales.