Leeds City Council (202336278)

Background

1. The resident’s tenancy started in January 2021. The property is a one-bedroom flat in a low-rise building. The resident told the landlord she was experiencing breathing and lung health problems and explained that she had also been referred to mental health specialists. In November 2023, the resident complained about the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff. The resident also asked the landlord to resolve outstanding repairs and reported recurring damp and mould in the property. In January 2024, the landlord issued its final complaint response; however, the resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the matter to this Service.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports about the conduct of a member of its staff.
   2. Reports of outstanding repairs in the property.
   3. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of a member of its staff.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs in the property.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
   4. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of a member of its staff

5. The landlord investigated the complaint, reviewed evidence, and met with the staff member involved. The landlord acknowledged the failure and apologised. It completed internal actions and shared the call recording with the resident. It acted proportionately to address the resident’s concerns and committed to improve future service. However, the landlord failed to apply its compensation policy framework for awarding moderate financial redress for the distress caused to the resident.

Handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs in the property

6. The landlord completed most repairs within the expected timescales. The landlord did not address the resident’s reports about the wet room floor or the living room windows in line with its repair obligations. This caused ongoing inconvenience and frustration for the resident.

Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

7. After receiving a new report of damp and mould, the landlord did not carry out an inspection, which was necessary to identify the cause and determine the appropriate remedial actions. The landlord failed to demonstrate due regard for her vulnerability. These failings potentially prolonged exposure to damp and mould and increased health risks. These concerns caused the resident distress.

The complaint handling

8. The landlord’s complaint handling failed to maintain oversight of its repair responsibilities, missing an opportunity to resolve the complaint. The landlord did not correctly direct the resident to this Service in its stage 2 response. It failed to separate and address each part of the resident’s complaint through its two-stage procedure. The landlord showed no evidence of learning from mistakes during the complaint handling process. These failings delayed resolution, confused the resident, and created avoidable time and trouble.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

What we did not investigate and why

9. The resident complained about the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff. The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. It is the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it.
10. The resident raised concerns about the potential impact on her mental health, and we understand those concerns. However, unlike a court, we cannot determine the cause of any health issues or establish liability and award damages. Such matters are usually addressed through legal action or a personal injury claim.

What we found

11. The landlord’s Employee Code of Conduct states that members of the public should expect the highest standards of behaviour from its staff. For staff conduct complaints, the landlord’s Disciplinary Policy says it should carry out an investigation. To make an informed decision, the landlord should aim to gather evidence from all parties.
12. On 21 November 2023, the resident called the landlord’s Out of Hours Team to report a broken boiler. During the call, the handler mistakenly assumed the resident was on hold while they spoke to someone nearby. The resident thought the handler was speaking to her and later complained that the handler had used inappropriate language. This made the resident feel uncomfortable and disrespected.
13. The landlord investigated the complaint by reviewing the call recording and confirmed that the case handler had used inappropriate language, which breached its values. On 27 November 2023, the landlord met with the case handler to discuss the issue. The case handler explained that the comments were directed at a family member, not the resident, but acknowledged the matter had an impact on the resident. The landlord reminded the case handler that professional standards apply whether working from home or the office. The case handler issued an apology to the resident through the landlord, which it included in both its Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaint responses.
14. The landlord also provided the resident with a copy of the call recording and confirmed that further action would be taken in line with its internal policies. Internal communications show these commitments were fulfilled. Through its investigation and feedback to the case handler, the landlord identified lessons to prevent similar issues in the future. It also highlighted the need for additional training on handling emergency calls and improving its resources.
15. The landlord took the resident’s complaint seriously, conducted a thorough investigation, and identified a failing in line with its policies. The landlord acknowledged the impact of these failings, offered an apology, and provided clear feedback to the resident regarding its findings.
16. The conduct of the landlord’s staff member caused the resident upset. The resident had to pursue the matter further because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s initial response. When she received the call recording, she realised the wider scope of the comments made, which led her to escalate the complaint. She spent time and effort in doing so. The landlord’s own compensation policy on financial remedies includes a framework for awarding moderate financial redress where a resident has been inconvenienced or distressed as seen in this case. The landlord made no such award. Given this, a determination of reasonable redress cannot be made and as such a finding of service failure has been made.

17. This Service has exercised its available discretion to include investigation of complaint elements which have not exhausted all stages of the landlord’s complaints procedure. This reflects the landlord’s decision to incorporate the elements into its final formal complaint response.
18. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Handbook states that general repairs should be completed within 20 working days.
19. On 12 December 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to Stage 2, listing several outstanding repairs affecting the property. It is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for completing these repairs.
20. The landlord replaced the radiators on 11 January 2024 due to their age and condition, which was after 19 working days. On 16 January 2024, it completed repairs to the kitchen light, toilet seat, internal doors, and the damaged front door spyhole, which was after 22 working days.
21. On 10 August 2023, the landlord visited the property and reported that no repairs were needed for the wet room flooring. In December 2023, the resident raised a specific complaint about the condition of the wet room floor. When responding at Stage 2 on 8 January 2024, the landlord relied on evidence from its August 2023 visit to maintain its position that no repairs were required. It also explained that it does not replace flooring for cosmetic reasons, such as paint marks. The landlord informed this Service that, when issuing its Stage 2 response, it was unsure whether the damage to the wet room floor was historic or current and therefore decided not to raise a work order.
22. In its Stage 2 response, the landlord should have committed to inspecting the wet room floor, identified the cause of the damage, and refreshed it view as to any repair need.. The landlord’s failure to so act delayed the repair and caused the resident some avoidable inconvenience, as she later had to report a leak from the wet room floor on 14 March 2024.
23. The landlord raised two repair orders and investigated the issue. The landlord discovered that the wet room flooring was coming away from the wall and carried out the replacement works on 20 March 2024. This was 68 working days after the resident raised this complaint element.
24. The landlord could not complete the living room window repairs on 15 December 2023 because it could not access the property. This appointment was not arranged with the resident. In its Stage 2 complaint response on 8 January 2024, the landlord asked the resident to rebook the repair. It attempted to call her, but the phone number on record was invalid. When the resident did not respond to an email or contact the landlord, the landlord closed the order.
25. It is unclear as to what the landlord relied upon in having an adequate degree of confidence that the resident received its communications related to these works. It relied upon the resident to make contact before any additional efforts to progress a known outstanding repair. This cannot but have contributed to the landlord losing visibility and oversight of the repair. The landlord took appropriate initial steps on 14 December 2023 by classifying the window issue as an emergency and attending on 15 December 2023. Ventilation provided by fully functioning windows is a key element in inhibiting damp and mould growth. The absence of such in this case has been a potentially causative factor to the reported damp and mould growth.

26. This Service has exercised its available discretion to include investigation of complaint elements which have not exhausted all stages of the landlord’s complaints procedure. This reflects the landlord’s decision to incorporate the elements into its final formal complaint response.
27. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it has a zero-tolerance approach. It commits to investigating all reports of damp and mould, identifying the cause, and carrying out remedial actions to minimise the risk of recurrence. Our spotlight report on damp and mould says that landlords should respond in a timely manner and that its response should reflect the urgency of the case.
28. On 2 June 2023, the landlord completed an annual tenancy check and identified an issue with “damp/mould/condensation” on the kitchen ceiling and bathroom floor corner. It referred the issue to its damp and mould team and provided advice to the resident. The landlord then attempted to contact the resident by making several calls, leaving voicemails, and sending an email on 26 June 2023 to arrange an inspection.
29. On 1 July 2023, the resident said she could not respond during the week and agreed to an inspection on 10 August 2023 during her annual leave. The landlord inspected on that date, found minor mould with no repairs needed, and completed the mould treatment on 31 August 2023.
30. In her stage 2 escalation on 12 December 2023, the resident reported that damp and mould kept recurring despite multiple engineer visits, with the issue returning within a month each time. She also said it was affecting her respiratory health, which she had reported to her doctor.
31. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained it had treated the minor mould on 31 August 2023. The landlord mentioned that the resident provided positive feedback regarding these works through a satisfaction survey. It also stated that damp and mould can recur during colder months due to condensation. The landlord decided no further action was required and included a leaflet with guidance and practical steps to help prevent mould from returning.
32. Particularly given the resident’s vulnerabilities the landlord should have carried out an inspection to address this new report of damp and mould, identify the cause, and specify any actions both to design out the cause and address and remedial need. By not conducting an inspection, the landlord allowed damp and mould to persist longer than necessary, which caused the resident meaningful, and avoidable, worry given her health concerns.
33. The evidence seen indicates that the landlord did not repair the living room windows to improve ventilation or take steps to comprehensively identify the underlying cause of damp and mould. Instead, it repeatedly treated the symptoms without adequately diagnosing or addressing potential causative factors.
34. On 14 February 2025, the landlord inspected the property. On 19 March 2025, the landlord again carried out a further mould treatment. On 4 December 2025, the resident told this Service that damp and mould had again returned, reportedly throughout every room at the property.

35. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code states that a resident does not need to use the word “complaint” for their concern to be treated as such. An internal email dated 2 June 2023 reported that the resident had “complained about damp in both the kitchen and bathroom”. The landlord did not treat this as a formal complaint. This was a failing and a missed opportunity for earlier resolution.
36. The resident did not mention the outstanding repairs or the damp and mould in her Stage 1 complaint dated 21 November 2023. The resident only surfaced these issues in her escalation request dated 12 December 2023. The landlord chose to include responses on all matters within its Stage 2 reply. This was not in line with the landlord’s two stage complaint process.
37. The landlord’s 2023 complaints procedure states it will acknowledge complaints within 3 working days at both stage 1 and stage 2. It also commits to responding to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. These timeframes align with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code.
38. The landlord issued formal responses at both stages within the required timescales. It acknowledged the stage 1 complaint within 3 working days but did not acknowledge the stage 2 escalation. However, because the landlord provided the stage 2 response within the correct timeframe, the lack of acknowledgement had minimal impact on the resident.
39. In its stage 2 response, the landlord committed to remedying the reported issues. It however failed to effectively manage three elements of repair need through to timely and enduring remedy through its complaint management.
40. In its stage 2 response, the landlord signposted the resident to an incorrect alternative dispute resolution service, rather than this Service. This misinformation required the resident to spend avoidable time identifying and contacting the correct ombudsman Service.
41. Taken cumulatively, these failings amount to a finding of service failure.

Learning

Communication

42. In this case the landlord failed to keep track of known repair issues.
43. The landlord should learn from its failure to capture the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint. It should also ensure that all points raised in the complaint have been reviewed against its compensation and repair policies and satisfy itself of the efficacy of its actions.
44. The landlord incorrectly signposted the resident to an alternative dispute resolution service instead of directing them to this Service. The landlord should ensure staff are trained to provide accurate signposting to prevent similar issues and reduce inconvenience for residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

45. In this case, the landlord did not have an up-to-date contact number for the resident. Keeping accurate and current records is essential for effective communication with residents.