Lancaster City Council (202342337)

Decision
Case ID	202342337
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Lancaster City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Assured tenancy
Date	29 October 2025

Background

1. The resident has held the assured tenancy in trust for her niece since December 2023. The property is a 3-bedroom, semi-detached house. In January 2024 the landlord inspected the resident’s staircase and found that it needed to be replaced. The resident chased the landlord about the works in February 2024. It told her it had decided to repair the stairs following a joiner’s recommendation. The resident disagreed with its decision, she said the stairs were a safety risk and needed to be replaced.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a new staircase.
3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Service failure in its response to the resident’s request for a new staircase.
   2. No maladministration in its response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Request for a new staircase

5. The landlord did not keep adequate records of the January 2024 survey results. This indicates poor record keeping. It did not explain why it disregarded the January 2024 survey’s recommendation to replace the stairs. This caused the resident unnecessary distress. It also did not attempt a further repair on the stairs until 2 months after it had carried out a temporary repair. This was not in line with its repairs policy timescales.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and procedures.

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 provided by one of the landlord’s management team. 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 26 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request for a new staircase. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 26 November 2025

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider the recommendations and findings of the Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and conduct a review of the record keeping issues found in this case.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 April 2024	The resident wrote to the landlord and raised a complaint. She said: –       In January 2024 the landlord inspected the stairs twice and said it would replace it. However it had not replaced the stairs yet and was now saying it would only repair them. –       The landlord’s staff had ignored the safety concerns she had raised about having broken stairs in a house with young children. –       There had been a lack of communication from the landlord and conflicting information.
11 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: –       The stairs had been damaged by previous residents. –       The original inspector said the staircase may need to be replaced. However the subsequent inspector said it could be replaced and it arranged for a joiner to attend with a catalogue to select stair parts. –       The repair works would reinstate the stairs to their original design. It would not install spindles as that would be an improvement. –       Repair works were booked to take place on 11 April 2024 but the resident refused access. It said it would contact her to arrange another appointment. –       It had been consistent in telling the resident the stairs could be repaired and it would not install spindles.
16 April 2024	The resident escalated her complaint because she said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response but gave no further details.   The landlord contacted the resident to ask her for details on why she was unhappy.
29 April 2024	The resident confirmed why she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said the landlord needed to replace the staircase, as it previously said it would, because the layout was dangerous for children. She said the landlord had left her household with a dangerous staircase for 5 months.
10 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it had dealt with the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy. However, it felt it had not covered the following elements: –       The complaint handler did not contact the resident to get more information about the complaint and a comprehensive understanding of all the issues. –       The case handler reached conclusions without having sufficient oversite of all information. As such, they had pre-determined the outcome of the complaint without being sufficiently unbiased. –       The response did not fully address the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s staff. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It said that while this did not overturn its decision not to improve the stairs, it would arrange for a senior manager to re-assess issues raised independently within 5 days of its response. It also said it had reminded its case handlers about the importance of seeking to make contact residents as part of the complaints process. It also said it would look to have staff undertake unconscious bias training.
15 May 2024	The resident confirmed that she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and she wanted us to investigate the complaint.   On the 22 May 2024 she provided details about why she was unhappy with the landlord’s responses. She said the first and second inspectors condemned the stairs but the last one did not listen to her and was very rude. She said all the stairs were broken and she was initially told it would be replaced. However, she said the landlord had not done this and instead decided to repair the stairs despite the safety concerns she had raised.

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 request for a new staircase
Finding	Service failure

7. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is, this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
8. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will carry out routine repairs within 20 working days.
9. In the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s stage 1 response both parties refer to at least 1 inspection of the stairs having taken place in January 2024. The resident said she was told the stairs would be replaced while the landlord said it had found it may need to be replaced. We requested a copy of this survey report from the landlord on 8 October 2025, as of the date of this report it has failed to provide this. In this particular case the investigation has been able to reach a determination based on the information received. However, the omission indicates poor knowledge and information management by the landlord as it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked.
10. An internal chaser email dated 9 February 2024 said the job relating to the stairs had been closed but the notes said new stairs were required. Following the resident contacting the landlord for an update about the stair replacement on 20 February 2024, a further internal chaser was sent out. It said the inspector had determined that a new staircase was required but the joiner that attended to measure it had decided the stairs could be repaired. This email also asked if it could be made sure that ‘the staircase is actually replaced’. Based on this information, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the initial inspection report recommended the landlord replace the staircase rather than repair it.
11. In response to the resident’s chaser email on 20 February 2024 the landlord said it had spoken to the joiner and decided the stairs would be repaired. Landlords are entitled to rely on information provided to them by their contractors and representatives in the absence of independent third party evidence to the contrary. They are also entitled to change their decision on whether to replace or repair something, as long as it is reasonable to do so and it confirms its decision, including its reasoning. However, in this instance, the landlord has not explained why it decided to disregard the initial recommendation to replace the stairs in favour of the joiners opinion that it could be repaired. This was unreasonable and caused the resident unnecessary distress as she has said she felt it ignored her safety concerns about why the stairs should be replaced.
12. The records seen show that on the 22 February 2024 the landlord carried out a temporary repair on the stairs. This was in line with its repair policy timescales. The Ombudsman is also aware that the landlord arranged a further repair to take place on 11 April 2024. However, the resident refused it access because she wanted it to replace and not repair the stairs. The landlord has not explained why it did not attempt a further repair on the stairs until nearly 2 months after the temporary repair. This was not in line with its repairs policy timescales. Additionally, without an explanation the Ombudsman can not reasonably conclude that this delay was reasonable.
13. Between 21 February and 9 April 2024 the resident contacted the landlord around 5 times to chase the replacement of the stairs. She said she was unhappy it had only carried out a temporary repair on 22 February 2024 and she wanted it to replace the stairs. She also said she wanted it to install spindles so the youngest child could use them to climb the stairs.
14. In response to each of these communications the landlord confirmed it would be repairing the stairs and would not install spindles. Furthermore, in its response dated 11 April 2024 it explained it could repair and restore the staircase to its original condition. It also said these works were required to make it safe, while the installation of spindles would be an improvement.
15. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident felt the landlord ignored her safety concerns about the staircase. However, generally landlords are allowed to rely on information provided by their contractors regarding whether to replace or repair something. The Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord did not explain why it chose to go with the recommendation to repair the stairs rather than the initial survey finding to replace it. That said, its staff were consistent in informing the resident that this was the decision it had made and it considered spindles to be an improvement.
16. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that it would reassess the issues raised by the resident. The evidence seen shows it instructed a structural survey of the stairs around 20 May 2024 and instructed a spindle banister to be installed. It said that despite being an improvement, it felt the installation of this banister was appropriate in this instance. The survey took place on 7 June 2024. It recommended that it would be more cost effective to replace the stairs to prevent ongoing maintenance problems in the future. The landlord replaced the staircase on 7 August 2024.
17. Overall the landlord’s failures can be summarised as:

–       Failing to adhere to its repair policy timescales.

–       Inadequate record keeping.

–       Failing to explain why it disregarded the initial inspection’s recommendation to replace the stairs.

 

18. In view of this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and pay £100 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge them or has made no attempt to put things right.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

19. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of it being logged. It also says the landlord will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the date of the escalation request. The policy says that should more time be needed at either stage, the landlord will inform the resident and agree an extension.
20. In this instance, the resident raised her complaint on 9 April 2024 and the landlord issued its response on 11 April 2024. This was within the timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
21. Similarly, the resident escalated her complaint on 16 April 2024 and the landlord issued its response on 10 May 2024. This was within the timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
22. It its stage 2 response the landlord said it felt the stage 1 response did not adequately address the resident’s concerns about its staff and came to conclusions with insufficient information. In recognition of this it said it would have a senior manager review the complaint and provide additional training to its case handlers. This was a reasonable response to the shortcomings the landlord identified in its complaint handling.

Learning

Communication and record-keeping

23. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords let residents know what to expect regarding repairs.
24. Similarly, clear record keeping is an essential part of providing a repairs service and responding to complaints. It allows a landlord to monitor outstanding works and contractor performance, as well as provide accurate information and an effective service to its residents.
25. In this case, the landlord failed to explain to the resident and this Service why it had chosen to repair rather than replace the stairs in February 2024. Had the landlord done so it may have avoided the resident feeling like it was ignoring her safety concerns about repairing the stairs. It also failed to provide a copy of any survey reports from January 2024.