Leeds City Council (201811573)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201811573

Leeds City Council

3 February 2021

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 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 resident complains about:

a. the landlord’s handling of his reports of repair issues at his property.

b. access to adult social care and support

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Complaint about access to adult social care and support

In his letters to this Service the resident raised concerns about access to adult social care, and what he termed as neglect from these services, stating that he had been provided with no social worker, care package, respite bed or mental health support.
Social services do not fall within the function of the council as a landlord but are part of its wider function as a local authority. This aspect of the complaint therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), which is the appropriate body to consider complaints about a local authority (LA).
Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that this Service will not investigate complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. In light of this, the complaint about access to adult social care and support falls outside of this Service’s jurisdiction, and is not considered here.

Response to reports of repairs up to and including 2015

It is not entirely clear from the resident’s letters to this Service what period his complaints relate to. It is evident however that the resident has been making similar complaints for a number of years (as set out in the background section of this report).
In July 2015, the Ombudsman issued a decision on a complaint brought by the resident which related to repairs at the property. It was found at that time that the landlord had made a reasonable offer of redress which resolved the complaint. In line with its data retention policy, this Service does not hold a full copy of the decision made in 2015 and is therefore unable to say exactly which repairs were considered as part of the 2015 investigation. However, the resident would have had the opportunity to raise all that he was dissatisfied with up to that point in this complaint.
Paragraph 39(o) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman won’t consider complaints which seek to raise again matters which we have already decided. In light of this, the Ombudsman will not consider any repair issues which were raised up to and including July 2015. This is because the Ombudsman has already investigated the landlord’s response to reported repairs at the property for this period and, while the exact scope of that investigation is not known, the resident had the opportunity to raise all complaints with the landlord and escalate to the Ombudsman at that time.

Background and summary of events

The resident has sent the Ombudsman a very large number of handwritten letters that run to well over 100 pages. In these he repeats complaints about a dangerous housing situation due to repairs required at his home, and the affect this is having on his health (as well as a number of other concerns, for example about adult social care). He mentions damp and mould in the property and states that he has no power, heating or hot water. He says that there is loose brickwork, holes in the wall, rot and decay, a leak through the roof, faulty wiring, and a faulty boiler.
The resident has said that the landlord has ignored court orders, injunctions and warning letters from his solicitor about repairs. He says it has refused to listen to the reports of repairs or carry out any repairs. He states that the property has been condemned by a surveyor sent by his solicitor. He explains that the property is structurally unsound and in danger of collapsing. He has asked to be rehoused to a suitable property. He has stated that he is seeking a ‘huge, vast pay out’ to address these issues.
The resident has not set out what period these matters relate to or how long the issues he details have been ongoing. There is evidence in the information available to this Service that the resident has been complaining about similar matters for at least seven years: A report that the landlord has provided dated 2014 notes that the resident made numerous contacts with various bodies raising concerns relating to unmet social care needs, and the condition of his property. The report explained that while the resident complained that there had been a failure to provide services, investigations found that services were provided, but the resident had not engaged with these.
Few records are available to this Service from July 2015 that relate to the issues raised in the resident’s complaint. With reference to the repair record, the following jobs were raised form July 2015 onwards, though no detail on the outcome of these is included in the record.

13 July 2015 – condensation/painting damp in numerous rooms.
22 October 2015 – minor works dpc (the ombudsman understands this refers to a damp proof course) to kitchen, refix gutter, renew and minor works pointing to rear low level.
8 March 2016 – gas fumes – customer reporting gas fumes.
15 March 2016 – no heat from c/h boiler has been capped off.
17 March 2016 – minor works dpc to kitchen, refix gutter, renew.
8 July 2016 – plumbing- water coming into kitchen from ceiling.
3 November 2016 – damp/condensation/painting in kitchen x 2 areas.
16 December 2016 gas leak – boiler leak – capped at outlet.
31 May 2017 – generic surveyors inspection.
20 July 2017 – plumbing leak from upstairs flat.
27 July 2017 – damp/condensation/painting throughout.
8 August 2017 – trace leak from above.
5 September 2017 – gas fumes.

A letter from the landlord to the resident dated 27 July 2017 stated “You are aware that an order to carry out work to remedy a minor damp problem was raised in October 2015 however this work was not completed due to repeated access issues. The work was reraised again in March 2016 however the outcome was the same and despite extensive efforts to engage with you through your support network, the work remained outstanding.”
It noted that an inspection of the property took place on 23 June 2017 (presumably this is the inspection raised on 31 May 2017) in response to concerns that the resident had raised about repairs and safety issues, which had found that the damp in the kitchen had worsened and had caused some damage to the timber floor in the kitchen. The landlord said that it was important that it completed work to the kitchen promptly to prevent further deterioration.
In October 2017 the landlord made arrangements for the resident to stay at a respite service whilst essential repair works were carried out to the kitchen as follows:

Damp proof walls
Replace damaged floor joists and floorboards
Repair plaster to the walls
Refit the kitchen
Carry out redecoration once the walls have dried, and retile worktops

The resident was advised to let the landlord know if there were any other repair issues he was concerned about so that these could be addressed as well. However, it is recorded that the resident refused access on the day and did not attend the respite service, although it is noted that he did later complain that the landlord had not carried out the repairs.
There were a total of 32 jobs raised after the failed decant works of October 2017, up until the end of 2018. Many of these relate to reports of no electricity/heating/hot water which were logged as ‘priority one’, although it is not possible to tell from the repair record if the landlord attended in the appropriate time frame. A number of the jobs raised are recorded as ‘no access’. This Service notes that there were no jobs raised in relation to damp and mould in 2018, although there was a leak from the property above in April 2018.
In June 2018 the Ombudsman received a formal complaint from the resident about repair issues at his property which he described as damp and mould and general disrepair. This Service contacted the landlord to enquire about the status of these issues, and asked it to treat the matter as a formal complaint if it had not done so already.
The landlord provided a stage one response on 11 July 2018, in which it noted that the resident had sent numerous letters over a period of time within which he raised concerns about outstanding repairs. The landlord said that there had been extensive attempts to complete repairs, but as the resident had not cooperated some repairs remained outstanding, involving the kitchen floor and some damp-proofing works. It said that it was satisfied that these repairs posed no immediate risks to health, safety and wellbeing.
It noted that following extensive engagement between the resident, the repairs team and the adult social care team, arrangements were made for the resident to temporarily vacate the property in October 2017 to enable all the repairs to be completed. Despite working with the resident and accommodating his requests during this process, he had failed to allow access. In January 2018 the resident had raised the repair issues again through his social worker, and subsequently, the landlord had visited him along with his along with his housing support worker in order to discuss these repairs. At that meeting the resident only gave permission to carry out repairs to the boiler, but refused permission to carry out any other repairs.
The letter went on to say that despite this refusal to allow the repairs to be completed, the resident had continued to write to the landlord/council about outstanding repairs. In order to try to re-engage on these issues, the landlord and social worker planned to re-visit him to explore the possibility of reinstating the repairs orders.
With regards to the damp and mould mentioned in the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman, the letter acknowledged that some works to remedy low level damp in the kitchen were required. These were outstanding because the resident had not allowed access for them to be completed. A leak through the ceiling had been repaired, with the area dried. The letter also noted that in April 2018 the landlord had replaced the gas boiler with an electric boiler as the resident had repeatedly reported issues of carbon monoxide poisoning.
The letter concluded “The Council has reached a position where it has exhausted all efforts to engage with you and arrange access and this has been communicated to you in the past. I hope that my response clarifies the Councils position in relation to these issues and confirms that should you cooperate and allow access, arrangements will be made to complete the repairs.”
These issues remained ongoing throughout 2018 and late that year the resident, via his solicitor commissioned an independent surveyor’s report of the property, which they then forwarded to the landlord in January 2019. This identified a number of repairs required, the most prevalent being penetrating damp. Over the following months communications were ongoing between the landlord and solicitor regarding these matters, and plans were again made to decant the resident so that all works could be carried out.
This was arranged for January 2020, however on the day the resident did not provide access. Following various communications between the resident, this Service, the LGSCO and the landlord, on 25 February 2020 what was in essence a final response to the complaint was provided by adult social care. In this letter it was noted that the resident had complained that his solicitor had the property inspected and it had been condemned, it was structurally unsafe and at risk of collapse, a court had made an order that it carry out repairs, and that there was no gas, hot water, or electricity. He had also complained that no one was corresponding with him.
The letter set out the efforts made to carry out the repairs in January 2020 via a decant, and noted that this was the second time it had attempted to carry out the repairs in this way. It stated “Whilst there are some external repairs that can be completed without you allowing access, to complete the entire schedule that we have agreed with your solicitors we will need you to cooperate with our plans to gain access to the interior of your property. We have updated your solicitors and we suggest that you provide them with further instructions so that we can make progress with this issue.”
The letter confirmed that no evidence of structural weakness had been found at the property. It said that in April 2018 due to repeated claims of fumes the landlord had installed an electric combi-boiler. When it had then responded to the resident’s concerns about the electricity supply and having no hot water, it had found that there was no credit on the electricity meter, so it needed topping up, and when this was done the problem was resolved. It noted that there was no court order in respect of the repairs.
In relation to the complaint that no one was corresponding with the resident, the letter noted that he had instructed a solicitor to deal with his complaint of disrepair and therefore all correspondence had been conducted via the solicitor.
On 28 February 2020 the landlord was contact by Citizen’s Advice as the resident had presented advising that he was unable to stay at his property due to repairs that the landlord was are refusing to carry out. In response to further letters of complaint the resident sent to the landlord about repairs at his property, the landlord wrote to him on 27 April 2020 stating that it had made extensive efforts to address these as it had previously explained. Due to the pandemic lockdown it was not able to revisit plans until restrictions were relaxed. It said “We did not assess the repairs required to be urgent or essential structural that would jeopardise your health and safety.”

Assessment and findings

In line with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, the installations for the supply of gas and electricity, heating and hot water. These obligations are also reflected in the resident’s tenancy agreement. It should also be noted that the tenancy agreement obligates the resident to provide access to the landlord to carry out repairs in his property.
The landlord’s repair policy makes reference to ‘batched repairs’, which are described as non-urgent repairs that may require a pre-inspection; need time to order and/or manufacture materials. Examples include repairing and unblocking guttering, major repairs to timber and concrete floors, and damp-proofing work. It is noted that surveyor pre-inspections sometimes need to be carried out prior to beginning repair or maintenance work for complex repair issues (for example, structural repairs, reports of damp or where there is an on-going problem).
As set out above, it is not entirely clear from the resident’s communications what time period his complaint to this Service relates to, and there is little information available to this Service prior to 2017/2018. The repair records from 2015 and 2016 show that jobs were raised in relation to damp issues and concerns about the boiler.
The landlord’s letter of 27 July 2017 provides some more information about the works that were deemed necessary at the property at that time, and problems it had completing these due to lack of access. The dates given in this letter for works being raised in October 2015 and again in March 2017 to address a minor damp issue are supported by the repair records, as is the inspection of the property it references as having taken place in June 2017 (although no detail of the inspection is included) which found that damp in the kitchen had worsened and needed to be resolved quickly.
While there are no contemporaneous records that show what happened between the inspection of July 2017 and October 2017, it is understood that the landlord spent this time arranging the necessary works and a decant for the resident so that they could all be completed. This would seem to have been a reasonable course of action to take given access issues in the past, and is broadly in line with the “batched repairs” policy.
There is not a great deal of evidence or information available to the Ombudsman for this period, but what is available suggests that there was a minor damp issue at the property, the landlord raised repairs for this, but it reports that they were not completed due to access issues, which led to the attempted decant. Based on the information that is available, the landlord’s actions here seem to have been reasonable.
Following on from the “no access” in October 2017, there was a multi-agency visit to the resident on 11 January 2018 to discuss the matter. It is noted that at this meeting the resident gave permission to carry out repairs to the boiler, but refused permission to carry out any other repairs. The landlord noted that at the meeting, despite complaining that it would not repair the property, the resident confirmed that he did not want the property repaired, and was planning to move out.
The landlord stated in a follow up letter to the resident that it had reassessed the kitchen flooring during the meeting, and confirmed that despite some floor tiles having come loose, the floor was stable and posed no risk of collapse. It concluded that “Any further concerns that you raise about these repairs, unless they are new issues, will be acknowledged however no action will be taken” The resident was provided with the telephone number for the repairs team should he change his mind about the repairs.
The letter also noted that the resident had reported carbon monoxide poisoning at least six times. Each time, no evidence of poisoning had been detected. The landlord offered to remove the gas boiler and fit an electrical system to resolve this.
While the landlord did have a repair obligation, given the failed attempt in October 2017 to complete the repairs, the fact that the resident declined the repairs and said he was going to move out, and that reassessment did not find the repairs to be urgent, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s actions here were reasonable. It is clear that efforts were made to engage with the resident and try to find a solution so that the outstanding works could be completed. The offer to replace the boiler also demonstrates that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and was willing to take significant action to find solutions to these.
The resident continued to send letters of complaint to the landlord and other services reiterating his concerns. An internal email from the landlord dated 30 April 2018 notes that while there were outstanding repairs the resident refused access for these, and as they were non-urgent, it was not progressing this.
However, there is also some evidence in the information available to this Service that the landlord continued to engage with other services in relation to the repair issues at the property: On that same date a meeting took place at the resident’s GP surgery, attended by the repair manager, GP and the social worker. There is no detailed record of this meeting but the outcome is noted as “…keep offering [the resident] support in all areas”.
The landlord has explained to the Ombudsman that it was decided at the meeting that it would try and re-engage with the resident along with his support services to address the repair issues. The landlord then says that it attempted to meet with the resident on 11 May 2018, but states that the resident was unavailable to allow access. It says that another visit was arranged for 14 May 2018 and again the landlord reports that there was no access. However, there is no contemporaneous record of this or any other mention of it in the information available. However, the property was accessed on 18 May 2018 in relation to a leak from the leasehold property above, which seems to have first occurred in April 2018. The landlord has said that there was some delay in addressing this due to access issues, but it was repaired.
Overall, there is little evidence that the landlord was taking steps to try and address the outstanding repairs at the property during this period. This perhaps was not wholly unreasonable given the stance it took in January 2018. Having said this, given that the last survey that had taken place in July 2017 had found that the repair issues had worsened, and given the ongoing reports of poor conditions at the property from the resident, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have attempted to carry out another survey, or at least inspected, the property to assess its condition and whether the damp issues had deteriorated further. Given that access was provided in relation to the leak from above in May 2018, this perhaps could have been utilised to also assess the condition of the property overall.
In a letter to the resident dated 1 June 2018 (in response to several letters that the resident had sent the preceding weeks) it was noted that there were some long-standing repairs required at the property, but they were “not immediately urgent”. It said that “The work shall require you to grant access to your home for sufficient time for the work to be completed. As soon as [the social worker who had been on leave] is back she and [the repairs manager] shall contact you to discuss this further.” It is not clear to the Ombudsman how the landlord assessed that the repairs were not “immediately urgent”.
A record of an annual home visit dated June 2018 notes that repair issues were discussed with the resident and it was highlighted that for these to be carried out access must be provided. Again, while this stance was not wholly inappropriate based on prior inspections, an updated inspection could have either reassured the landlord that the property was not deteriorating, or identified that in fact, works were essential.
On 20 August 2018 Citizens Advice contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf to report repair concerns. On 28 August 2018 the landlord visited the resident with his social worker, and confirmed that his home was safe to live in. Some repairs were required, which could be completed over five days with a respite placement for the period. There is no contemporaneous note of the visit, but this is set out in a letter to the resident dated 19 September 2018, in which the landlord also asks the resident to let it know when he was ready to go ahead with the plan to decant.
The landlord responded reasonably here to the concerns raised via Citizens Advice, and worked with support services to arrange for repairs to be carried out. However, it is not clear how the landlord determined that the property was “safe to live in” and no indication that any survey of the property was caried out.
On 2 October 2018 there is a note in the landlord’s records that the resident’s social worker would be visiting him to discuss the outstanding repairs required at the property, having a survey carried out, and providing a five-day respite placement so that the works could be completed. The Ombudsman understands that this visit did take place on 8 October 2018, but due to threats made by the resident during this meeting the housing service suspended home visits while carrying out a risk assessment. Following this the landlord emailed support services confirming that there were a number of repair issues that needed to be addressed in the property, and asking for assistance with this. It was noted that the resident had refused access for outstanding repair work and had been offered respite accommodation so that the works could take place, but would not utilise it.
There are then indications in the records that the resident was engaging with some repair works. For example, he provided access for plastering works to be carried out, noted as completed in the landlord’s records on 2 October 2018. There is a further note dated 23 October 2018 of a visit to the property which states that the resident “said he will allow us access to finish the repair work”. Confusingly, there is also a note of that same date stating that the resident had refused access.
A record dated 29 October 2018 states that the landlord had tried to contact the resident to arrange to attend on 30 October 2018, sending a text message to advise of this when there had been no answer. A note dated 30 October 2018 records that there was no access.
On 18 December 2018 a meeting took place attended by the safeguarding and risk manager, senior social worker, senior technical officer and complaints manager. In regard to the repair issues, it was noted that the kitchen floor required assessment, and that this would determine the urgency of the repairs. Some damp needed to be addressed, and kitchen cupboards replaced. Decorating works could then be carried it. It was felt that if the resident was decanted, these works may take one week to complete. It was noted that the resident had agreed to remove some of his items from the property but that this will need to be at his own pace.
Again, it is clear that the landlord did wish to address the repair issues at the property and was working with other services towards this goal. But the Ombudsman would have expected it to have made efforts to carry out an inspection or survey before this point to determine the property’s condition, given the ongoing complaints that the resident was making about this.
Internal emails from early January 2019 show that the landlord was going to try and access the property on 22 January 2019. The landlord reports that the resident did not allow access, however there is no contemporaneous record of this.
The information from 2018 is, in areas, not entirely clear and lacking in contemporaneous records. There is evidence that demonstrates that the landlord was taking action to try and address repairs at the property during 2018 by liaising with the resident’s support services and offering respite provision so that the resident could be decanted while works took place. However, it could have carried out a survey of the property in light of the resident’s ongoing reports of its poor condition, to establish whether there had been any deterioration since the survey was conducted in July 2017.
In January 2019 the resident’s solicitor sent the landlord a copy of a surveyor’s report detailing the findings of an inspection carried out on 5 December 2018. This set out a number of repair issues, with the most widespread being penetrating damp throughout the property. It also noted that the property was without electricity (and therefore heating and hot water) due to a ‘major fault’ with the installation. It concluded that there were a number of category 1 hazards at the property, including ‘excess cold’, and there was a breach of duty of care on the part of the landlord. This is a strong indication that the condition of the property had deteriorated significantly since the landlord’s July 2017 survey.
The Ombudsman has seen reference to a visit to the property in January 2019 in response to a report by the resident that he had no electricity. It was found that there was no power and so an emergency order was raised, and although it is not clear to this Service what the outcome of this was, an email dated 8 February 2019 to the resident’s solicitor explained that inspections had found the boiler to be working, however the thermostat/clock needed to be adjusted from the way in which the resident had set it. It was noted that the resident had been shown how to use the electricity meter and thermostat several times previously.
As noted above, the landlord had already attended the property that month due to the reports of no power/heating/hot water and had found no ‘major fault’ with the system, contrary to the surveyor’s report. Nevertheless, the surveyor’s report did detail a number of other issues which were the landlord’s responsibility to repair, and so the landlord was obligated to respond in a reasonable and timely manner.
The records show that initially it did take appropriate and timely action to address the issues: for example, the survey was discussed at a multi-agency meeting that took place on 29 January 2019. The minutes of this meeting show that it was attended by the resident, his solicitors, support workers, and landlord staff members. The minutes detail that the landlord was aware of the repair issues at the property, but the resident had not allowed access therefore preventing it from completing the remedial works required. The surveyor’s report was discussed, as was the option of a decant so that all of the repairs could be carried out, and it was agreed that all appointments were to be booked via the resident’s solicitor to help with engagement.
The minutes also mention that due to previous issues and ongoing reports from the resident of poisoning, the gas heating system was replaced with an electric system by mutual agreement. However, the resident was turning this off and using plug in heaters.
This multi-agency meeting was a reasonable and appropriate action for the landlord to have taken to try and resolve the ongoing issues, engaging the resident and support services in discussion on how to address the repairs. The Ombudsman has also seen that the landlord wrote to the resident and his solicitors with the minutes of the meeting, detailing the actions that had been agreed to resolve his concerns, which in relation to repairs were:
1. arrange for any urgent electrical work to be done, and for a survey of all other repairs required to the property;
2. investigate the possibility of the resident staying at another property while the necessary repairs were completed, and;
3. repairs to be booked through the resident’s solicitor.
The landlord acted appropriately here in confirming what had been agreed and the action it would be taking, although the landlord would have better managed the resident’s expectations had a timescale for the actions to have been included.
Further evidence is available to show that the landlord was following up on these agreed actions. For example, on 4 February 2019 the repair team emailed the legal team about the surveyor’s report, explaining that an inspection by its own surveyor was required to enable each of the issues to be addressed, and asked that a date for this be arranged through the resident’s solicitor. They said “Once this survey is complete, we will be able to develop the decant options. Depending on how this progresses, there will be nothing to stop us, with agreement, carrying out any external works ahead of arranging a decant.”
It was reasonable for the landlord to conduct its own survey of the property before deciding what works it would carry out and arranging a decant. This was in line with its decant policy, which states that “The need for a decant will be established following a surveyor’s inspection and assessments of the works to be carried out...” It was also in line with its repair policy, as detail at paragraph 31 above. It was also reasonable for the landlord to decide to carry out the external works in the meantime, given access for these would have been more straightforward and would have addressed several of the issues that had been highlighted by the survey.
An internal email from the repair team dated 6 February 2019 notes that in their view the property conditions did not make it uninhabitable. The team said that there was some structural damp present which it had made attempts to remedy previously, but considered that the resident not using the heating correctly was impacting on this.
While it is not within the scope of this investigation to determine the cause of the repair issues identified or the discrepancy between the views of the resident’s surveyor and the landlord, there is no evidence that the property was either condemned, or found to be structurally unsound and in danger of collapsing. Neither is there any indication of an injunction or other court action being taken against the landlord.
The Ombudsman has seen that the landlord wrote to the resident on 14 February 2019 in response to a number of letters he had sent, explaining that electricians had now inspected the property as promised, and found that the electrical supply was on and working (The Ombudsman has also seen evidence in the repair records of jobs raised around this time relating to the electrics). The letter said that the survey of the property was scheduled for 15 February 2019 (the Ombudsman understands that this may have been a typo, as the survey appears to have taken place on 15 April 2019) and “I hope the meeting reassured you that we do recognise the problems that you have described and that we have a plan in place to support you. Whilst it will take time to fully implement that plan you can see that we have begun work on it.”
This letter demonstrates that the landlord had acted swiftly in carrying out the electrical inspection of the property and, as it seems had previously been found, there was no fault with this. Further records note that also on 15 February 2019 the landlord attended to again investigate reports of no electricity, heating, or hot water, and had found that there was no power as there was no credit on the electricity meter. Further emails from the landlord’s legal team in March 2019 set out that while the resident had said he was having to use torches “…all the inspections have confirmed that the electrics and the electricity meter in the property are all working.”
These records demonstrate that the landlord continued to take the resident’s reports of no heating/hot water/electricity seriously, but at each attendance no fault with the system was found.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord’s survey took place on 15 April 2019. While it was reasonable for the landlord to conduct its own survey of the property before determining what works it was required to carry out, given that it was aware of the need to do so in early February 2019, there was a delay in this being completed. The Ombudsman has not seen any indication in the records that this was due to any access issues.
On 8 May 2019 the resident’s solicitor emailed the landlord saying that they were awaiting the finalised surveyor report and proposed list of works, and explained that they “…were keen to start discussing the work to be conducted / arrangements so that we can return the property to a safer standard…asap.” Later that month the landlord provided the solicitor with a Scott Schedule setting out the landlord’s response to the December 2018 survey report, and what works it would be carrying out. The Ombudsman considers that this was a reasonable time frame from the date of the survey taking place in April 2019 due to the need to determine costs for the works and other information.
The landlord noted in the Scott Schedule that there were a large number of belongings in the lounge which prevented full investigation of the walls as access was not possible. It also concluded that this meant that there was poor airflow around the room and radiator position, which would restrict the heat output when the central heating system was being used. It found that a combination of all these factors would result in a lower overall temperature within the room. It was also noted that the resident was using a small oil filled radiator to heat the room, which was insufficient. It set out that the landlord had conducted a full check of the electricity supply and installation and had found that there was no credit on the meter, and all issues were resolved when credit was added. The heating system was also tested and found to be in full working order.
However, it is evident from the Scott Schedule that there were a large number of repairs required at the property, and that in the main the landlord’s own inspection agreed with the findings of the December 2018 survey. It noted that emergency orders would be raised to replace a roof slate, and to address an issue with rainwater runoff from the bay roof by-passing the outlet to flow over the edge of the flat bay roof, which was causing penetrating damp inside the property. However, the Ombudsman can find no evidence of these works being raised in the repair records, or any other reference to them having gone ahead as an emergency. Neither is there any indication in the records that the external works were carried out in the meantime, as had been suggested in February.
The landlord noted that it would provide information to the resident’s solicitor on timescales and decant arrangements when it was available. Internal emails from May 2019 show that the landlord intended to draft a timescale, but there is no indication that this happened. The resident’s solicitor then chased the landlord on a number of occasions over the next few months, asking for the proposed timescales and decant information. In September 2019 an internal email from the landlord’s legal department noted that it had received no further update on the planned works since July 2019, and requested this urgently so that they could advise the resident’s solicitor when the works would be done and what arrangements it was proposing for decanting.
While the landlord’s policy on ‘batched repairs’ makes no mention of timescales, and it is acknowledged that these works required planning, it is the Ombudsman’s view that there was a significant delay on the part of the landlord in making the arrangements for the work to be carried out. In addition, it failed to provide timescales and updates to the resident (via his solicitor), or otherwise keep him informed. The repair records show no jobs raised between February and September 2019, which indicates that all of the repairs that were detailed by the surveyor, and in the Scott Schedule, remained outstanding during this time.
It was not until 10 October 2019 that the landlord was able to advise the resident’s solicitor that the planned start date for the works was 20 January, and provided the details of the arrangements that had been made to facilitate this, such as inventories that would be taken of the resident’s belongings, which would then be packed up and put into storage. It stressed that the resident would need to be present on this date, with respite accommodation booked from 21 January to 21 February 2020. The landlord asked for confirmation that the resident would provide access to enable works to be carried out and for his belongings to be put into storage.
Throughout November and December 2019 it is evident that the landlord was taking steps to arrange the decant and the required works, and when the resident later asked that instead of the respite placement, he be housed in a hotel, the landlord arranged this for him. A pre-meet was held with the resident on 17 January 2020 along with his support services to finalise plans, and all was agreed to go ahead on 20 January 2010.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord made reasonable adjustments in light of the resident’s support needs to facilitate the decant so that works to his home could be completed. However, when the landlord attended on 20 January no access was provided. The landlord made an attempt again the following day, but again no access was provided. Given the efforts and considerable resources used to get to this stage, this was no doubt frustrating for the landlord.
The landlord then wrote to the resident to ask for permission to carry out the external works at the property from 10 February 2020 for around four days. While this was appropriate given the failed decant, it is not clear why the landlord did not carry out the external works prior to this time, as it had suggested it would back in February 2019. It could be said that issues with access could have been reasonably predicted, given the history of the case, and carrying out the external works as soon as possible, without the need to wait for decant arrangements, would have been a proactive step.
The landlord has informed this Service that all external works have been completed (although it is not clear when and does not appear in the repair records). It is currently considering attempting another decant so that the internal works can be carried out.

Determination (decision)

In line with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure on the part of the landlord in the handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues at his property.
In line with paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme, the complaint about access to adult social care is outside of jurisdiction.

Reasons

This has been a very finely balanced decision. It is clear from the information available to the Ombudsman that access to the property has been a significant barrier in the landlord carrying out the works required to the resident’s home. It has made extensive efforts, in conjunction with the resident, his solicitor, and support services to make reasonable adjustments so that the repairs could be completed. This no doubt has taken up a considerable amount of resource. The resident’s tenancy agreement obliges him to provide access for repairs, yet on several occasions he has not allowed access for repairs to be undertaken.
The evidence also shows that the landlord took steps to replace the gas boiler at the property in light of the resident’s ongoing concerns about this, and that when he then reported faults with the new system this was investigated and no fault with the electrical supply or heating and hot water at the property was found.

There is no evidence that the property has been condemned or has been found to be structurally unsound. Neither is there any indication of court orders or injunctions. While the resident complains that the landlord does not listen to his reports of repairs and refuses to carry them out, the evidence demonstrates that this is not the case.

However, it is a concern that the repairs at the property have been outstanding for so long. Despite the significant problems that the landlord has faced it remains the case that it is responsible for carrying out these works and it could have done more to review the condition of the property in 2018. As the independent surveyor’s report evidenced, there was a significant deterioration in this from the survey carried out by the landlord in 2017.
It was then a year from the provision of the independent survey detailing the repairs required to these being scheduled. This was a long delay which does not appear to have been caused by access issues, and there is little indication that the resident was kept updated on progress. Further, there was an opportunity missed to have carried out the external repairs sooner. These failings could warrant a more serious finding of maladministration (rather than service failure), and a higher compensation amount, but the Ombudsman takes into account the mitigating factors in the case and the clear efforts that the landlord has made to try and fulfil its repair obligations.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident £200 as a remedy to the delays in carrying out works to the property.
2. Seek legal advice on its repair obligations in this case.
3. Within one month of obtaining legal advice, convene a meeting with the resident, his support services and any legal representation he has, to decide on a way forward so that the repairs can be completed. This should include the possible outcomes should the resident not provide access for any planned attendances.
4. Within one month of this meeting, the landlord should write to the resident (via his representative should he have one) setting out a proposal for completing the repairs, to include a timescale.